The return of Colonialism?

drillyeye

With the direction the world is on, do you think colonialism will make a return?

I can see it happening, maybe.

The world population needs to severely decrease (frighteningly so). The likes of the first world has naturally approached a balancing, even decreasing, population.

There is only so far our European lifestyle can go, only so many cars we can own, only so many iphones, only so many houses etc. We live in service economies, having relegated industrialisation to the past. It has a natural end-point and has been reached organically.

The developing world is way behind. Only now are some of them entering industrialisation, and their populations are steadily increasing.

But heres the big difference. Not everyone can own an iPhone, or a car, or have premium healthcare and so on. There just isn't enough "material" in the world for everyone. Its a finite world, and if you wanted to consider it a race to get to our position in Europe, we won. Its more or less game over.

Can you imagine an Africa that resembles Europe today, at ANYTIME in the future? Or an India that isn't over-populated and ill health-ridden?

With the spill-over of these massive populations now heading for the first world, (and increasingly so, given climate change etc) it will logically lead to a concomitant drop in the quality of life here. Our system was designed with X amount of people in mind.

Solution: A return of colonialism?

I don't necessarily think this is going to happen, and it has nothing to do with race or ethnicities (just the luck of where you were born)........but on the scale of potential futures, its hardly the least likely. And I have to say, its a preferable situation to watching the entire world disintegrate. You can already see the results starting to form, whether through nationalism or trade wars.

Can you see colonialism returning in full form? If not, how do you see the management of the world taking place?

DEFTLEFTHAND

All advanced civilistions conquered.

Can you imagine what the likes of Aus, Africa, USA would be like without the colonisers.


The Congolese had no concept of time measurement and were wiping their arses with their hands when the Belgians moved in for jaysus sake.

Hitman3000

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote:

Can you imagine what the likes of Aus, Africa, USA would be like without the colonisers.

Do you think colonisation was a good or bad thing?

drillyeye

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

All advanced civilistions conquered.

Can you imagine what the likes of Aus, Africa, USA would be like without the colonisers.


The Congolese had no concept of time measurement and were wiping their arses with their hands when the Belgians moved in for jaysus sake.

I'm not trying to put anyone down, as I said, it was a just a race to advance and Europe got there first. Just the luck of the draw where you were born.

But When I say a return to colonialism, I mean, the usual suspects just taking up the mantle again, UK, France, Germany etc.

drillyeye

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Do you think colonisation was a good or bad thing?

I think it was inevitable.

But is a return inevitable also?

SEPT 23 1989

It's Saturday night ffs chill out and have a drink

Wibbs

Colonisation never really went away. The obvious marching in with guns and planting flags yes, but what's the ultimate aim of that? Imposing the new culture on the old and controlling resources and financial institutions in the colonised country. These days the marching armies aren't required. Look at the continent of Africa. In many of the countries the natural resources and the workforce are exploited by outside interests and a large chunk of the money is siphoned overseas. Look how the Chinese are operating there. It's actually easier and less risky and cheaper not to send in flag planting armies.

drillyeye

Wibbs wrote: »

Colonisation never really went away. The obvious marching in with guns and planting flags yes, but what's the ultimate aim of that? Imposing the new culture on the old and controlling resources and financial institutions in the colonised country. These days the marching armies aren't required. Look at the continent of Africa. In many of the countries the natural resources and the workforce are exploited by outside interests and a large chunk of the money is siphoned overseas. Look how the Chinese are operating there. It's actually easier and less risky and cheaper not to send in flag planting armies.

No doubt, the means of control changed over time.

But is it necessary/likely to intervene and control, for example, population now? In other words, a far more direct return to colonialism, perhaps military and all?

And to shut down rampant (and unnecessary) industrialisation?

Hitman3000

drillyeye wrote:

I think it was inevitable.

Not what I asked.

Skylinehead

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

The Congolese had no concept of time measurement and were wiping their arses with their hands when the Belgians moved in for jaysus sake.

They didn't have hands to wipe their arses after the Belgians moved in.

drillyeye

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Not what I asked.

But ultimately the correct answer. It doesn't matter whether it can be viewed in hindsight as good or bad. Was it necessary for the advancement of those controlling nations? (fulfilling that necessity could be seen as "good")

I think it was.

In the same vein, for the advancement (or perhaps, intervention, to save the planet) of human society, it might be inevitable, and good, again.

Hitman3000

drillyeye wrote:

But ultimately the correct answer. It doesn't matter whether it can be viewed in hindsight as good or bad. Was it necessary for the advancement of those controlling nations? (fulfilling that necessity could be seen as "good")

Colonisation was never good for the indigenous people and any attempt to claim it was is tbh ignorant and dismissive of the damage done.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Do you think colonisation was a good or bad thing?

Overall a good thing as it advaned backward lands from the stone age.

I'm not excusing any bad and dishourable behaviour carried out by the colonisers in saying that.

Hitman3000

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote:

Overall a good thing as it advaned backward lands from the stone age.

So basically you are saying the colonial power knew what was best.

drillyeye

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Colonisation was never good for the indigenous people and any attempt to claim it was is tbh ignorant and dismissive of the damage done.

Overall I'd lean slightly toward worse outcome for colonised countries. There were a lot of benefits too, technological and health advancement, transportation infrastructure and whatever, still in use today.

But it was obviously good for the colonisers, in that it was an opportunity for colonial countries to advance.

If the history was flipped on its head, it would be Africa as a colonial power. Same result. Only difference being that one advanced ahead of the other, and therefore had the opportunity, and inevitably took the opportunity, to lord it over the rest of the world to its benefit.

Feelings and interpretations basically bring you nowhere. The fact of the matter is that colonialism happened because it "had to", it was (and might be again!) the logical step for advancement.

Hitman3000

drillyeye wrote:

But it was obviously good for the colonisers, in that it was an opportunity for colonial countries to advance.

Most parasites benefit from the nutrients of the host.

drillyeye

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So basically you are saying the colonial power knew what was best.

As a matter of fact, given that a colonial power was inherently more advanced, yes, they knew better.

Harsh, but true.

drillyeye

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Most parasites benefit from the nutrients of the host.

So what do you propose to do about the state of nature?

4068ac1elhodqr

You seem to be linking Colonialism to the on-going issue of global over-population and finite resources.

Anyone notice the amount of noise coming from the media and WHO regarding 'Pandemic X' in the last month.
They're stirring up about it, but it doesn't (yet) exist. Calling it 'X' is also a bit concerning.

The Georgia guidestones and many idealists recommend a total population of just 500m.

Harry Palmr

We're all being colonized by Facebook and the like. If the likes of Cambridge Analytica can 'fiddle' with elections and referendums they can impart propaganda about procreation and indeed who is worthy and who is worthless.

drillyeye

Emelia Warm Magnesium wrote: »

You seem to be linking Colonialism to the on-going issue of global over-population and finite resources.

Anyone notice the amount of noise coming from the media and WHO regarding 'Pandemic X' in the last month.
They're stirring up about it, but it doesn't (yet) exist. Calling it 'X' is also a bit concerning.

The Georgia guidestones and many idealists recommend a total population of just 500m.

You could say, in a way, that's its a lack of management. India, in particular, is very likely to the be the incubator for a worldwide pandemic.

So do you let that happen "naturally" and reduce the population in the worst, most horrific way possible, or do actually take a hold of the reigns and start managing places that aren't/cant manage themselves?

Richard Hillman

I think it would work out well for both parties. Africa is ridden of corrupt leaders, law and order resumed and viable employment opportunities for the people with more efficient work practices. The colonizers can reap the rewards of the exports these countries possess at a fair price for both parties.

They are the factories and we are the administration and sales department.

Zebra3

Colonialism never went away.

It continues to this day in Palestine as the Zionist ethnic cleansing campaign continues.

Neo-colonialism is rampant. This is where countries appear to be independent (have a native government/president, flag, seat at UN, etc) but their natural resources are controlled/plundered by western companies and the government/president is corrupt and working in the interests of the foreign companies instead of the native people.

This is a big thing when it comes to the US and its’ lackeys interfering in foreign elections and overthrowing democratically elected governments.

They despise independent countries that they can’t loot. They’ll claim to hate Iran because it’s an Islamic extremist state or some such nonsense which when you look at their long standing alliance with Saudi Arabia (chop chop!) is obviously bs.

America’s decades long campaign of hatred against the peoples of Central America to serve the interests of United Fruits is another example.

Hitman3000

drillyeye wrote:

So what do you propose to do about the state of nature?

It's an simple analogy of what colonisation is.

drillyeye

Hitman3000 wrote: »

It's an simple analogy of what colonisation is.

But its like saying "isn't it terrible that lions eat baby lambs!"

Yeah, it is. But pointing out the obvious does no good, and trying to inject emotions into the ruthless state of nature is EXACTLY what grinds everything to a halt, allowing the world to crumble simply because some people cannot stomach reality.

Its childish.

You work alongside nature to achieve the best possible outcome, not oppose nature and reach the worst possible outcome.

bpmurray

OP's concerns about population are perhaps wid of the mark - have a look at this https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth

Skylinehead

Skylinehead wrote: »

They didn't have hands to wipe their arses after the Belgians moved in.

Easily, the most harrowing photo I have ever seen in my life. The caption of this ineffably stomach-turning infamous photo reads: 'A Congolese man looking at the severed hand and foot of his five-year-old daughter who was killed, and allegedly cannibalized, by the members of Anglo-Belgian India Rubber Company militia.'

But I suppose, as somebody in this thread has just said, 'As a matter of fact, given that a colonial power was inherently more advanced, yes, they knew better.'

Hitman3000

drillyeye wrote:

Yeah, it is. But pointing out the obvious does no good, and trying to inject emotions into the ruthless state of nature is EXACTLY what grinds everything to a halt, allowing the world to crumble simply because some people cannot stomach reality.

What a pile if arrogant tosh.

steddyeddy

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

All advanced civilistions conquered.

Can you imagine what the likes of Aus, Africa, USA would be like without the colonisers.


The Congolese had no concept of time measurement and were wiping their arses with their hands when the Belgians moved in for jaysus sake.

The Belgians cut off the hands of many Congolese making ass wiping the least of their worries. The Congo under Leopold was far less civilised than what came before.

biko

Some say the huge influx of MENA people into Europe is a new colonization.

greencap

drillyeye wrote: »

With the direction the world is on, do you think colonialism will make a return?

I can see it happening, maybe.

The world population needs to severely decrease (frighteningly so). The likes of the first world has naturally approached a balancing, even decreasing, population.

There is only so far our European lifestyle can go, only so many cars we can own, only so many iphones, only so many houses etc. We live in service economies, having relegated industrialisation to the past. It has a natural end-point and has been reached organically.

The developing world is way behind. Only now are some of them entering industrialisation, and their populations are steadily increasing.

But heres the big difference. Not everyone can own an iPhone, or a car, or have premium healthcare and so on. There just isn't enough "material" in the world for everyone. Its a finite world, and if you wanted to consider it a race to get to our position in Europe, we won. Its more or less game over.

Can you imagine an Africa that resembles Europe today, at ANYTIME in the future? Or an India that isn't over-populated and ill health-ridden?

With the spill-over of these massive populations now heading for the first world, (and increasingly so, given climate change etc) it will logically lead to a concomitant drop in the quality of life here. Our system was designed with X amount of people in mind.

Solution: A return of colonialism?

I don't necessarily think this is going to happen, and it has nothing to do with race or ethnicities (just the luck of where you were born)........but on the scale of potential futures, its hardly the least likely. And I have to say, its a preferable situation to watching the entire world disintegrate. You can already see the results starting to form, whether through nationalism or trade wars.

Can you see colonialism returning in full form? If not, how do you see the management of the world taking place?

I would like to see north Africa become Europes manufacturing hub.

This would be an economic variant of colonialism in a sense. If north African countries would accept guidance and management they could do well for themselves.
Now there'd be a certain bad taste involved, having foreigners telling you how to get your sht together, but the benefits to those countries would be worth it.

N.Africa could be Europes manufacturing hub, taking Chinas place to an extent.
Yeah us wicked Europeans would be profiting off African labor, but if that could be ignored it would be a win-win for both continents.

Also an economically stable N.Africa could prevent illegal immigrants from crossing the sea to the el-dorado that they seem to have been told Europe is.

4068ac1elhodqr

greencap wrote: »

I would like to see north Africa become Europes manufacturing hub.

This would be an economic variant of colonialism in a sense. If north African countries would accept guidance and management they could do well for themselves.
Now there'd be a certain bad taste involved, having foreigners telling you how to get your sht together, but the benefits to those countries would be worth it.

N.Africa could be Europes manufacturing hub, taking Chinas place to an extent.
Yeah us wicked Europeans would be profiting off African labor, but if that could be ignored it would be a win-win for both continents.

Also an economically stable N.Africa could prevent illegal immigrants from crossing the sea to the el-dorado that they seem to have been told Europe is.

Europe already has it's eyes on NA through the Barcelona/Euro Mediterranean Declaration of 1995. Meaning it would like it's fingers in the messy pie that is Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey and Israel.

But as well as economic partnerships, it would likely also have to equate to 'cultural integration'. The only way do secure these territories over the likes of China is to throw cold hard money at it and also open the doors wider, and prepare for further 'enrichment'.

At which point there may be plenty more EU countries considering adding the suffix '-exit' to their new referendums.

Franz Von Peppercorn

I don’t buy that foreign companies setting up shop is colonialism. If it is we continue to be colonised.

The_Valeyard

I love Colonialism in Civ VI, Stellaris and Crusader Kings 2, but not in real life.

Zebra3

For anyone that wants to know more about what the Belgians did in the Congo, I highly recommend this book.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Leopold's_Ghost

Absolutely incredible book.

Odhinn

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Overall a good thing as it advaned backward lands from the stone age.

So, from not having a central government and access to advanced technology to being enslaved and ordered provide work in a feudal manner, while being excluded from government and profit along racial and sectarian lines is an "advance"

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I'm not excusing any bad and dishourable behaviour carried out by the colonisers in saying that.

Theres nothing wrong with colonialism except colonialism?

Odhinn

drillyeye wrote: »

Overall I'd lean slightly toward worse outcome for colonised countries. There were a lot of benefits too, technological and health advancement, transportation infrastructure and whatever, still in use today.

Anything there was put there with the advancement of the colonial power in mind.

drillyeye wrote: »

But it was obviously good for the colonisers, in that it was an opportunity for colonial countries to advance..

In Kenya, the kikuyu tribe was systematically ejected from the highlands to make way for colonists (many of them British officers) growing cash crops. Any produce placed on the market by a black african was penalised in such fashion as to make it unprofitable for them to work for themselves, and to make them cheap labour for the British run plantations. This went on until the 1960's. A native kenyan had to wear an ID like a dog tag hanging from his neck at all times.

I'd recommend
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Exterminate-All-Brutes-Darkness-European/dp/1862075085/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1340018026&sr=8-1
and on kenya specifically
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Britains-Gulag-Brutal-Empire-Kenya/dp/1847922945/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1521998647&sr=1-1&keywords=britains+gulag

Odhinn

biko wrote: »

Some say the huge influx of MENA people into Europe is a new colonization.

Some say lizard folk are our secret rulers. They've more credibility.

drillyeye

Odhinn wrote: »

Anything there was put there with the advancement of the colonial power in mind.



In Kenya, the kikuyu tribe was systematically ejected from the highlands to make way for colonists (many of them British officers) growing cash crops. Any produce placed on the market by a black african was penalised in such fashion as to make it unprofitable for them to work for themselves, and to make them cheap labour for the British run plantations. This went on until the 1960's. A native kenyan had to wear an ID like a dog tag hanging from his neck at all times.

I'd recommend
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Exterminate-All-Brutes-Darkness-European/dp/1862075085/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1340018026&sr=8-1
and on kenya specifically
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Britains-Gulag-Brutal-Empire-Kenya/dp/1847922945/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1521998647&sr=1-1&keywords=britains+gulag

So? Do you think facebook set up shop here for the benefit of irish people? Of course not.

Do irish people benefit indirectly? Of course they do.

Yes, there were many naughty things done in the name of profit in the old days. However I am not talking about the past, I am talking about the future.

Is it REALLY a good idea to let china go hell for leather in polluting the world? Or india to be allowed continue as a practical disease factory? Or to allow women suffer needlessly in parts of the middle east? and so on and on and on and on.

Instead of fussing about whether we use plastic bags in the west, womens rights in the west (like to hold open a door or not for them), how are we going to adapt these cultures into our own in the west.......how about we start at the root of the problem?

And in that sense, colonialism, as a matter of positive change, could be an answer.

Needless to say, the USA is a major polluting country in its own way, but we cant do anything about them. Not yet anyway. And business vultures would have to kept in check.

One thing is for sure, hand-wringing about the past is useless, especially when it is used as a means to obstruct proper management of our world. "Whataboutism" is the word, I believe.

drillyeye

Odhinn wrote: »

Some say lizard folk are our secret rulers. They've more credibility.

Large amounts of people from vastly different cultures moving en masse into Europe is a fact.

Fact.

"lizard people" is a fictitious thing to laugh at.

So no..... bad fiction doesn't have more credibility than a close interpretation of fact.

peckerhead

You high, bro?

Odhinn

drillyeye wrote: »

Large amounts of people from vastly different cultures moving en masse into Europe is a fact.

Fact.

.....but terming it an invasion is not. That's a fiction thats not funny at all.

triple nipple

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote:

Can you imagine what the likes of Aus, Africa, USA would be like without the colonisers.

Probably a much nicer place

Odhinn

drillyeye wrote: »

So? Do you think facebook set up shop here for the benefit of irish people? Of course not.

Do irish people benefit indirectly? Of course they do.

Yes, there were many naughty things done in the name of profit in the old days. However I am not talking about the past, I am talking about the future.

Racist, sectarian statelets, institutionalised bigotry, theft and violence, ethnic cleansing, genocide.........

drillyeye wrote: »

Is it REALLY a good idea to let china go hell for leather in polluting the world? Or india to be allowed continue as a practical disease factory? Or to allow women suffer needlessly in parts of the middle east? and so on and on and on and on.

Instead of fussing about whether we use plastic bags in the west, womens rights in the west (like to hold open a door or not for them), how are we going to adapt these cultures into our own in the west.......how about we start at the root of the problem?

And in that sense, colonialism, as a matter of positive change, could be an answer.

Colonialism as a humanitarian crusade was the apologists tune in the mid twentieth century. The "Thunderbirds" theory - There was a disaster over there, and we just went over to help. Total bollocks, of course.

drillyeye wrote: »

Needless to say, the USA is a major polluting country in its own way, but we cant do anything about them. Not yet anyway. And business vultures would have to kept in check.

One thing is for sure, hand-wringing about the past is useless, especially when it is used as a means to obstruct proper management of our world. "Whataboutism" is the word, I believe.

China is a nuclear power with a veto in the UNSC. India is a nuclear power, as is Pakistan. Attitudes like yours and bitter experience are perhaps a large part of what drove them to get the bomb above more humdrum domestic infrastructional concerns.

JCX BXC

triple nipple wrote: »

Probably a much nicer place

Really? You can confidently say that Australia and the US would have the same prosperity today without having the European originating populations they have today?

Hitman3000

JCX BXC wrote:

Really? You can confidently say that Australia and the US would have the same prosperity today without having the European originating populations they have today?

Read their post again, they used the word 'Probably'.

JCX BXC

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Read their post again, they used the word 'Probably'.

And I disagree, I think it's very obivous they wouldn't be.

Hitman3000

JCX BXC wrote:

And I disagree, I think it's very obivous they wouldn't be.

You think it's very obvious they wouldn't be? Quite a claim to make, i'm sure you can back it up.

Havockk

drillyeye wrote: »

So what do you propose to do about the state of nature?

What business of yours is it what kind of culture an indigenous people embrace in their own lands?

Why do you think they should be forced to adopt 'your' culture?

Why do you think they should be forced to become consumers, or labour for foreigners who come and forcibly take their land?

Talk about a walking advertisement for a wasted education. You can't even think for yourself and your opinions are not even your own.

This thread is scary, and depressing. That archaic notions such as colonialism still exist in this day and age are just mind boggling.

JCX BXC

Hitman3000 wrote: »

You think it's very obvious they wouldn't be? Quite a claim to make, i'm sure you can back it up.

Yet people who agree with your view don't have to?

Poor debating skills really.

Donald Trump

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

The Congolese had no concept of time measurement and were wiping their arses with their hands when the Belgians moved in for jaysus sake.

To be fair, that's sounds like a description of people living in Offaly now and you don't see the Belgians trying to colonize them