Colonization

[Deleted]

France got close to a million people killed in their colony of Rwanda.

Colonial powers would find a weak minority, in this case the Tutsi and put them in charge over the majority group, in this case the Hutu. Why, because the weak minority would depend on the colonial power for protection and the Tutsi would never try to overthrow the French.

The French gave the Tutsis all the jobs, police, teachers, government, etc.

The Hutu grew to hate the Tutsi.

When the French pulled out the Hutu rose up and slaughtered almost a million Tutsi.

And that, my friends, is why people with no knowlegde of history should refrain from making comments.

Rwanda wasn't a French colony, it was first a german colony, later a belgian colony. Hence why they spoke French. It is the first german and belgian settlers who placed their racial biases on the populations of Rwanda (Tutsis who were taller and whiter, hence nobler and more apt at leading (lol) /Hutus who were judged inferior). THAT is the basis of the genocide, and France had nothing to do with it. I repeat, Rwanda was a BELGIAN colony.

Later France got involved because they wanted to make sure the French speaking countries in Africa remained French speaking. That's why France sold some weapons (not used in the genocide) to the Hutu government after the independance, when Tusti invasions from the neighbouring Burundi were bringing even more chaos to the country. France did not cause the genocide in any way shape or form. What France did which is indeed shameful, is evacuate European colons but not any of the Tutsis. But then again we are talking about an operation involving only 190 men (Amaryllis). That's were the French guilt is, France had nothing to do with the causes (German and Belgian racism) or the events (the actual killing) of the genocide.

In addition, later France lauched tha UN-approved "opération Turquoise", aiming at protecting civilians and refugees in danger.
France, which had pretty much nothing to do with the situation, actually tried to help when every single other western nation was turning a blind eye on the slaughter.

So pardon me if I laugh when you say things like " France got close to a million people killed in "their" colony".

[Aggrophobic]

Slavery was great, as it gave the chance for better life to millions of people. It gave them food, clothing, safety, a longer life and the better chance to procreate successfully.

I hope this is some for of bad joke.
If not... Go back to school.

[Tackhisis]

But I'll settle for uneducated bordering

Go on, educate me. The primitive life in Africa was orders of magnitude worse than slave's life in USA or Brazil.

[Kalis]

Idiot, every colonial power was building railways in its colonies, of course the French did. Same for the belgians in Congo (and the belgians made the black build them in such atrocious conditions that many tried to run away whenever they had the chance).

On topic of course we talk about colonisation in France, the scramble for Africa, even if we insist a bit more on North Africa for obvious reasons. I'm baffled that it's not the case in England. But then again the english are better known for their contempt of other nations and their misplaced arrogance than for their educative system (wink wink nudge nudge say no more !).

Were any ex-French colonies not a shit show? Britain can point to Australia, New Zealand and Canada, for examples of ex-British Empire colonies that have done well.

British colonial legacy is very mixed, with some good and some not good. The French and Spanish colonial legacies are not so great. Best not to mention the German and Belgian ones at all.

I think in part it comes down to the attitudes of the nations involved, England was famously called a nation of shopkeepers, for us the commercial aspect was the prime motivator behind most decisions - we ended up at one point with Palestine, which was quite an impressive prize for a Christian nation, unfortunately it was not commercially viable and we spent the entire time we controlled it trying to give it away.

Other colonial powers, I think, wanted to expand their influence, colonies meant prestige and it lead to a different way of handling the regions under their control. That is not to say that those other colonial powers were not interested in the commercial side of things, nor that Britain was only interested in it, but that is my impression of their main motivation. The Dutch are quite similar to the British in that regard, another nation of traders.

[Shadowferal]

The West gave everything to their colonies: culture, education, humane religion, healthcare. If they were unable to grasp the spirit of the Western Civilization and reverted to their customal barbarity, it is their only fault.

Slavery was great, as it gave the chance for better life to millions of people. It gave them food, clothing, safety, a longer life and the better chance to procreate successfully.

You actually believe in this vile filthy shit, don't you?

Unfuckingbelievable...

Proof positive that self-deception is indeed one the greatest evils in the world.
I should wonder if any amount of education could overcome this...

[Elba]

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.

Can you back up your claims? For the entire African continent, every country and region, culture and ethnicity?

[Deleted]

Were any ex-French colonies not a shit show? Britain can point to Australia, New Zealand and Canada, for examples of ex-British Empire colonies that have done well.

British colonial legacy is very mixed, with some good and some not good. The French and Spanish colonial legacies are not so great. Best not to mention the German and Belgian ones at all.

I think in part it comes down to the attitudes of the nations involved, England was famously called a nation of shopkeepers, for us the commercial aspect was the prime motivator behind most decisions - we ended up at one point with Palestine, which was quite an impressive prize for a Christian nation, unfortunately it was not commercially viable and we spent the entire time we controlled it trying to give it away.

Other colonial powers, I think, wanted to expand their influence, colonies meant prestige and it lead to a different way of handling the regions under their control. That is not to say that those other colonial powers were not interested in the commercial side of things, nor that Britain was only interested in it, but that is my impression of their main motivation. The Dutch are quite similar to the British in that regard, another nation of traders.

How can you compare population colonies to occupation colonies. All british colonies that weren't full of brits went to shit. Of course it's much easier when you kill and replace the population, and treat like shit the survivors (hello Canada and Australia). I can't believe you can say those words with a straight face tbh...

Whatever, I'm done arguing with uneducated hypernationalistic trolls on the internet for the month.

[Kalis]

How can you compare population colonies to occupation colonies. All british colonies that weren't full of brits went to shit. Of course it's much easier when you kill and replace the population, and treat like shit the survivors (hello Canada and Australia). I can't believe you can say those words with a straight face tbh...

Something of an arbitrary reason for dismissing my claims, but regardless India is doing alright, ditto Hong Kong, Cyprus, Malta. All of them have kept large parts of the British system, e.g. Parliamentary democracy, largely because it is a system that works.

The British colonial legacy is a mixed bag, but can you name one ex-French colony that is doing alright, or not? There were loads of them, surely one of the little ones has done okay for itself, even if just by luck.

Whatever, I'm done arguing with uneducated hypernationalistic trolls on the internet for the month.

That is nice, how is it relevant to this conversation though?

[Techno-Druid]

You actually believe in this vile filthy shit, don't you?

Unfuckingbelievable...

Proof positive that self-deception is indeed one the greatest evils in the world.
I should wonder if any amount of education could overcome this...

I like how he says slavery gave a better life to millions with a longer life.

In Brazil, the slaves were treated so deplorably that most of them did not live long enough to reproduce. There had to be a steady supply of slaves from West Africa and Angola to replace the one's that died annually.

[Tackhisis]

In Brazil, the slaves were treated so deplorably that most of them did not live long enough to reproduce.

And in Stone Age Africa they lived in the paradise, right? You should separate the particular from the general.

[Super Kami Dende]

Colonisation has always been a Net Positive regardless of the negative aspects.

[Taso]

I like how he says slavery gave a better life to millions with a longer life.

In Brazil, the slaves were treated so deplorably that most of them did not live long enough to reproduce. There had to be a steady supply of slaves from West Africa and Angola to replace the one's that died annually.

What about the ottomans and barbery pirates. Many times they grabbed Africans enslaved them and some I won't say exactly what they did but they were made to be sterile and be chief of the girls.
Also my people the Irish were brutally oppressed by the British we were treated no better then slaves. Many times the Irish were thrown in jail and blamed for the ills of the empire. Our food was given to the British and corn laws were enacted to suppress Irish merchants. Combined with plagues our people were wiped out. We under Victorian science were the lowest of Anglo Saxon class and part of a barbaric religion called Catholicism. That the protestents despised.

[Jeezy911]

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.

I thought this was going to be a cool planet or moon discussion. Nope, just another white man bashing thread.

[Techno-Druid]

And in Stone Age Africa they lived in the paradise, right? You should separate the particular from the general.

Ah yes those Stone Age Africans. Those Ethiopians which farmed teff and coffee and had an empire that stretched into the Arabian Peninsula at one time. Those stone age Ethiopians which almost succeeded in conquering Mecca for Christianity.

Ah those West African states that traded with the Arabs and Mediterranean world. Mansa Musa, a West African Sultan who once single-handedly caused inflation in Venice on his pillage to Mecca.

Ah those stone age Swahili city-states which became wealthy from trade with the Silk Road. Those stone age cities of Mombasa, Pemba, Zanzibar.

Africans weren't flying spaceships or half the shit those "Afrocentrists" claim, but to act like Africa, a continent, the second largest continent, was stuck in the Stone Age just underlines your ignorance on the African continent.

- - - Updated - - -

What about the ottomans and barbery pirates. Many times they grabbed Africans enslaved them and some I won't say exactly what they did but they were made to be sterile and be chief of the girls.
Also my people the Irish were brutally oppressed by the British we were treated no better then slaves. Many times the Irish were thrown in jail and blamed for the ills of the empire. Our food was given to the British and corn laws were enacted to suppress Irish merchants. Combined with plagues our people were wiped out. We under Victorian science were the lowest of Anglo Saxon class and part of a barbaric religion called Catholicism. That the protestents despised.

Yeah, slavery and oppression is bad. Your point?

[Taso]

Ah yes those Stone Age Africans. Those Ethiopians which farmed teff and coffee and had an empire that stretched into the Arabian Peninsula at one time. Those stone age Ethiopians which almost succeeded in conquering Mecca for Christianity.

Ah those West African states that traded with the Arabs and Mediterranean world. Mansa Musa, a West African Sultan who once single-handedly caused inflation in Venice on his pillage to Mecca.

Ah those stone age Swahili city-states which became wealthy from trade with the Silk Road. Those stone age cities of Mombasa, Pemba, Zanzibar.

Africans weren't flying spaceships or half the shit those "Afrocentrists" claim, but to act like Africa, a continent, the second largest continent, was stuck in the Stone Age just underlines your ignorance on the African continent.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah, slavery and oppression is bad. Your point?

Don't treat it like it's only one side. That's my point.

[Techno-Druid]

Don't treat it like it's only one side. That's my point.

Don't accuse me of treating it like it's only one side. That's my response to your point.

[Deleted]

Can you back up your claims? For the entire African continent, every country and region, culture and ethnicity?

I don't need to back up my claims, no culture in history is free of sin.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

Considering that without colonization we'd haven been (yes, that's past tense) a stagnant race of monogenetic wastrels clumped up in small arid region of the middle east that would have been wiped out by the first massive plague we were infected with, yes, colonization was and is a good thing. Without it we wouldn't be here today, and certainly not as advanced as we are.

[Acidbaron]

It is covered here and the general consensus is that it is wrong for good reasons. And with covered i mean that the monstrosities committed there are being talked about in the history lessons, there are plenty of unfinished issues still such as the "adoption"( if you want to call it that) of kids.

My personal opinion, Belgian dealings especially in the first time of Congo was wrong to say the least but that's what you get if you have a mentally deranged person as King, later it improved when the monarchy hold surely and steadily decreased also its influence decreased on politics in general. However how we left it was also a mistake, should have never let it fall to rebels, since we all know the result its still one big mess and it's political leaders are a bunch of people purely in it for themselves and their "clan".

But i suppose we need some place to unload weapons.

[Tackhisis]

Ah yes those Stone Age Africans. Those Ethiopians...

The existence of Ethiopians, Egypt, other developed cultures doesn't change the fact that Africa and North America were the two continents still in the Stone Age in the New Age. The fact that the descendants of those continents are numerous, span continents and mostly living in civilized societies tells us the colonization was good for them, despite any anachronistic projections of our morals on that time.