Colonization

[Deleted]

i think i know why, teaching all the history to people makes more people like you. a country cannot be sustained with people like you. it would be ran over and backed up on then ran over again. you probably want to apologize for shit you never did cause somebody of your skin color or nation did wrong. thats not progress. also you judging people of history with your morals of today is pathetic. pathetic small little man

Projecting much. you can't even have a conversation about what is taught in the education system without getting offended. Snowflake.

[Rahulk]

Africa was a shithole of tribal violence before we got there, all we did was give them more ways to kill each other.

>
These attitude is why colonialists can't understand why colonialism is a bad thing.

[Taso]

After reading the G-20 thread and its comments on colonization, I am very confused. What are you guys taught about colonization in school?

Just to clarify I am obviously from a country that was part of a colony. As per the western education I received (British prep and American international schools) colonization was basically glossed over in world history classes.

There was no discussion or teaching on issues like colonization involved racism, slave trade, massive forced conversions, forced displacement, massacres, war crimes and the elimination of entire societies and cultures. This of course includes elements like rapes, child abuse, murder, torture and things today that would constitute genocide and crime against humanity.

It is also the source of many of the worlds problems. Sudan and South Sudan, Kashmir, Eritrea and Ethiopia, East Timor, Western Sahara, Nigeria's conflicts, Apartheid South Africa, the situation in Mozambique to name a few.

Not necessarily. Much of their current problems are do to lack of market demand and consildation of government power after the imperial powers left. See Africa thrived because the soviets and allies were pumping money into these countries plus tariffs. After the end of the cold war we suddenly changed on how these countries operated and decided that we would give money only after they reform their treatment of people and relax government regulations. Also copper,oil and lumber value fell thus causing a shortage of money. Now I'll be honest it's much more complex but I can verify this because I took an African politics course and I'm also an avid history learner.

[Camet]

After reading the G-20 thread and its comments on colonization, I am very confused. What are you guys taught about colonization in school?

Just to clarify I am obviously from a country that was part of a colony. As per the western education I received (British prep and American international schools) colonization was basically glossed over in world history classes.

There was no discussion or teaching on issues like colonization involved racism, slave trade, massive forced conversions, forced displacement, massacres, war crimes and the elimination of entire societies and cultures. This of course includes elements like rapes, child abuse, murder, torture and things today that would constitute genocide and crime against humanity.

It is also the source of many of the worlds problems. Sudan and South Sudan, Kashmir, Eritrea and Ethiopia, East Timor, Western Sahara, Nigeria's conflicts, Apartheid South Africa, the situation in Mozambique to name a few.

TBH most American schools only touch on the subject lightly due to a mostly western centrist view on history. Very few of us have studied beyond westernized history and look at a more globalized version of world history.

IMO - colonization has lead to a lot of good and a lot of bad things. We have opened medicine to places that did not have access to this but some of the issues are caused by our western behaviors. We think we are doing a good when in reality we might be hurting just as much as helping. Mining things like diamonds have lead to warlords rising up and pollution, destruction and lower living standards for workers in those regions.

Truth be told we will only know how the ultimate effect will come about in a few more hundred years when we can look back and say hey that was a great/terrible idea.

[Souflikar]

Syria was a colony.

France took over Syria and what was the fashion at the time the French found a small minority and put them in charge, imagine France taking over the US and putting blacks in charge. The minority they picked was the Alawite people, Shiites, Assad's people, the vast majority of Syria being Sunni.

They gave the minority Alawites all the jobs, teachers, bureaucrats, leaders, military.

Why did they pick a minority? Because the minority would depend on the French for protection, this was a strategy employed by all the colonial powers. The minority would never rebel against the French.

Meanwhile the majority Sunni population grew to hate the Shiites.

But I didn't learn this in school, it's in history books.

Exactly, schools refuse to teach actual history anymore.

[satimy]

Is your point that Africa needs colonialism to survive or that extremely long term foreign meddling in developing cultures caused severe and long lasting damage to several regions of the world and that these effects are still being felt to this day?

Yea the USA is really struggling because of colonialism. I wonder if they'll still blame colonialists 100 years from now

[Deleted]

>
These attitude is why colonialists can't understand why colonialism is a bad thing.

Ah yes sorry, I forgot that we're supposed to forget what Africa was like pre colonization, the Noble African lived in peace with his brethren, there was no war and all was plentiful.

Not like the slave trade in Africa existed for thousands of years before we got there, or that they were killing each other in droves over tribal bullshit, none of that happened.

Truly it was a paradise before the evil white man turned up.

[PC2]

Colonization brought developed civilization to new areas. Despite some suffering it was overall a net positive for civilization.

[buck008]

Yea the USA is really struggling because of colonialism. I wonder if they'll still blame colonialists 100 years from now

The USA is a poor example because we mostly killed or removed the native cultures. Americans were mostly Europeans. You didn't answer my question.

- - - Updated - - -

Colonization brought developed civilization to new areas. Despite some suffering it was overall a net positive for civilization.

Did it? Did the British and French bring modern technology and infrastructure to the places they colonized? Not really. They set up puppet governments and harvested the land of its natural resources. Even with all that, colonization lost far more money than it made. With a few notable exceptions, colonies were national status symbols more than anything else.

[Nerovar]

Schools encourage you to learn birthdates and all sorts of unimportant bullshit about "great men" who "make history" instead of encouraging young students to understand the way things actually work. We have learned nothing about colonization/decolonization during school. Hell, things like the Herero and Namaqua genocide weren't even mentioned as a side note. Studying history really opened my eyes in that regard.

Colonization brought developed civilization to new areas. Despite some suffering it was overall a net positive for civilization.

It was (and still is) a "net positive" but only for western civilization when it comes to exploiting ressources and opening up new markets. But for the people who actually live in these countries? Not so much. Imperialism and colonialism are simply the means of the capital to expand beyond one's own borders. It's nothing but economic competition leading to territorial expansionism. If you truly think that genocide and other acts of barbarism are a "net positive for civilization" then you've got some really twisted world view.

[PC2]

The USA is a poor example because we mostly killed or removed the native cultures. Americans were mostly Europeans. You didn't answer my question.

No, germs and a lack of immunity did most of the killing. Most Europeans who came to the new world never harmed a native.

[satimy]

For the vast majority of people in thoes countries, yes the standard of living is better and it is safer.
That does not mean it is perfect however.

There's more blacks impoverished in South Africa today than there was during apartheid

[buck008]

No, germs and a lack of immunity did most of the killing. Most Europeans who came to the new world never harmed a native.

Plague did a fair bit of the heavy lifting, but there were institutionalized efforts to remove native populations and it was perfectly acceptable to injure or kill any native that got in the way.

[satimy]

The USA is a poor example because we mostly killed or removed the native cultures. Americans were mostly Europeans. You didn't answer my question.

- - - Updated - - -



Did it? Did the British and French bring modern technology and infrastructure to the places they colonized? Not really. They set up puppet governments and harvested the land of its natural resources. Even with all that, colonization lost far more money than it made. With a few notable exceptions, colonies were national status symbols more than anything else.

They don't need anyone but themselves to survive, but people can't make excuses like "mug colonialism" because they are black and failing. South Africa is a fucking disaster, you were better off under White rule as a black person in many respects. Maybe colonialism was a mistake and setback but this notion of just sprinkling democracy on uncivilized violent tribes is an even bigger joke. We (the west) basically handed over Africa to the warlords

[buck008]

We (the west) basically handed over Africa to the warlords

Yes, they did. Often on purpose.

[Rahulk]

Ah yes sorry, I forgot that we're supposed to forget what Africa was like pre colonization, the Noble African lived in peace with his brethren, there was no war and all was plentiful.

Not like the slave trade in Africa existed for thousands of years before we got there, or that they were killing each other in droves over tribal bullshit, none of that happened.

Truly it was a paradise before the evil white man turned up.

And again, the same attitude of "instead of aid a neighbor to uplift he's status, let's move into he's house to take over he's shit" Nice approach, very altruist indeed!

[breadisfunny]

Most Europeans who came to the new world never harmed a native.

because slavery never existed NOPE.

[Deleted]

Learned about the Great Swedish Colonial Empire and that we have a great historical guilt to pay back.

[Aggrophobic]

There's more blacks impoverished in South Africa today than there was during apartheid

And more people as well.
But with your logic slavery is great, the US has more homeless now than during the 18th century.

[Kalis]

Did it? Did the British and French bring modern technology and infrastructure to the places they colonized? Not really. They set up puppet governments and harvested the land of its natural resources. Even with all that, colonization lost far more money than it made. With a few notable exceptions, colonies were national status symbols more than anything else.

The British Empire was well known for having given modern technology, e.g. railways, to its colonies. Not sure about the French, they tend to make a shit show of everything.