Does your country teach the horrors of Western Imperialism?

[BadguyNotBadGuy]

Schools in britain, as far as im aware, do not make their own committed atrocities must learns in school, which i feel is quite the travesty.
Instead we learned about how the british coal and rail industries started, and god damn that was some of the most boring and quite frankly useless info ive ever learned

[Kuntantee]

I've bolded the bits relevant to present discussion.

This is incomplete, there were slave raids to Wester Europe too. Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese coastline dwellers were enslaved, but not by Turks. French were spared, as they were allies. It still doesn't address who is the actual enslaver. For Eastern Europe, Crimean Khanate did conducted slave raids. Janissaries were not slaves. This is a vague paragraph.

[tikcol]

Ignorance and ill thinking.

European conquerors enslaved third nations and emptied their countries for centuries.
How those nations related to each other beforehand, it's irrelevant to you and me.
Point is, they were raped, enslaved, natural resources stolen and people put to hard labour, exposed to inhumane treatment for those centuries.

In effect, I say all these European conquering nations should pay a heavy price for all their past actions. Loose e.g.: 10% of their GDP should be redirected to those countries every year - under scrutinised European management! - for as many years they sucked them dry, times four, to develop local infrastructure, education, sanitation, healthcare, water and power management, etc. And provide free scholarships for their youth overall, with one condition: upon graduation and say 3 years hands-on experience gathered in a strong economy, they MUST return and build their own country.

And all this is a very small price to pay for the blood-boiling pain and injustice your forefathers caused to other human beings.

Oh, and one more thing: the only country in developed Europe that gives a self-critical image of their nation's impact on history, is Germany. Hence, the immense sense of guilt embedded in their people, from the youngest of age. And their behaviour, since WWII.
Everyone else, denies and/or fluffy-pink-clouds their impact on other peoples.

The reparations argument is flawed on so many levels that even people living in those countries don't want such a thing. It's more of a virtue signalling hot topic instead of an actual argument.

But then again..

You dont seriously believe half of what you wrote

[Deleted]

Janissaries were not slaves.

How were they not slaves? Reading about them on wikipedia it states specifically it was about abduction and enslavement of non-muslim boys, especially the Anatolian and balkan christian population.

[Kuntantee]

How were they not slaves? Reading about them on wikipedia it states specifically it was about abduction and enslavement of non-muslim boys, especially the Anatolian and balkan christian population.

It is not slavery, because they were not slaves. Turks do not use the word "slave" (literal translation: kole) for Janissaries, they were "kul", meaning servant. Bright Janissaries could rise in the imperial rank, could reach to rank of "Sadrazam" or Grand Vezier. This basically means your authority can only be questioned by Sultan himself, and no one else. Certain Eastern Europeans were known for bribing the imperial officers, so they take their sons. It's a fine career path in the Ottoman Military and Court. Starting from mid 16th century (conquest of Constantinople), Sultans preferred Devshirme pashas over Turkish pashas to weaken Turkish aristocracy and potential rivals. This meant that the high ranks were dominated by Devshirmes (what you call slaves).

If you give me an example of civilization which let slaves to command main imperial army, be governors, or even take slave girls as part of Dynasty several times, I will admit that Janissaries were slaves.

The Janissaries were neither treated nor labeled as slaves, they were not slaves.

[Deleted]

It is not slavery, because they were not slaves. Turks do not use the word "slave" (literal translation: kole) for Janissaries, they were "kul", meaning servant. Bright Janissaries could rise in the imperial rank, could reach to rank of "Sadrazam" or Grand Vezier. This basically means your authority can only be questioned by Sultan himself, and no one else. Certain Eastern Europeans were known for bribing the imperial officers, so they take their sons. It's a fine career path in the Ottoman Military and Court. Starting from mid 16th century (conquest of Constantinople), Sultans preferred Devshirme pashas over Turkish pashas to weaken Turkish aristocracy and potential rivals. This meant that the high ranks were dominated by Devshirmes (what you call slaves).

If you give me an example of civilization which let slaves to command army, be governors, or even take slave girls as part of Dynasty several times, I will admit that Janissaries were slaves.

The Janissaries were neither treated nor labeled as slaves, they were not slaves.

Oh, okay. So going by your logic, men who were trälar in Sweden weren't slaves because they weren't specifically called slaves? They were called errand boys. Women who were ambátt weren't slaves, they were called servants? This somehow means they're not slaves because you don't call them slaves? That's a mighty weird definition of slave you have there.

[Flarelaine]

This is incomplete, there were slave raids to Wester Europe too. Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese coastline dwellers were enslaved, but not by Turks. French were spared, as they were allies. It still doesn't address who is the actual enslaver. For Eastern Europe, Crimean Khanate did conducted slave raids. Janissaries were not slaves. This is a vague paragraph.

Of course it is incomplete, it is an excerpt from an article which can be read by clicking the link.

It does not matter which individuals conducted slave raids and slave trade in the Empire's name. The Empire allowed it, condoned it and maintained the institution into the 20th century. And cut the crap about the Janissaries - whether or not they were slaves does not negate the multitude of household and harem slaves.

[Kuntantee]

Of course it is incomplete, it is an excerpt from an article which can be read by clicking the link.

It does not matter which individuals conducted slave raids and slave trade in the Empire's name. The Empire allowed it, condoned it and maintained the institution into the 20th century. And cut the crap about the Janissaries - whether or not they were slaves does not negate the multitude of household and harem slaves.

What is the number of household and harem slaves out of millions of Europeans and hundreds of years? As for Empire allowing it, I am glad your arguments are now backpaddled to "allowing" instead of actually being enslaver.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, okay. So going by your logic, men who were trälar in Sweden weren't slaves because they weren't specifically called slaves? They were called errand boys. Women who were ambátt weren't slaves, they were called servants? This somehow means they're not slaves because you don't call them slaves? That's a mighty weird definition of slave you have there.

Read the entire post, I explained how they were also not treated as slaves and had rights, opportunities and power that no slave in other civilizations had. Then again, you are not that dumb (or I imagine one can not be this dumb). You are intentionally ignoring rest of the post, and picking on a single sentence because you have nothing to counter. Sorry to blow your European dogma; Turks aren't slavers. Europeans were tho, one of the most brutal slavers in the history of mankind. Let your pride swallow it.

[Teaon]

Oh, okay. So going by your logic, men who were trälar in Sweden weren't slaves because they weren't specifically called slaves? They were called errand boys. Women who were ambátt weren't slaves, they were called servants? This somehow means they're not slaves because you don't call them slaves? That's a mighty weird definition of slave you have there.

some parents push for the kids to be taken by the turks to become Janissaries, its literally a free job and future insurance for their kid, even though they know they probs going to lose him forever.

its not enslavement, not even close, is it bad for the families? yeah sure broken families are actually shit, but the kid could grow to become a very important figure in the empire, just like the dude you quote said, some even reached the highest rank a non-sultan can reach, aka Grand Vezier.

[Machismo]

What is the number of household and harem slaves out of millions of Europeans and hundreds of years? As for Empire allowing it, I am glad your arguments are now backpaddled to "allowing" instead of actually being enslaver.

- - - Updated - - -



Read the entire post, I explained how they were also not treated as slaves and had rights, opportunities and power that no slave in other civilizations had. Then again, you are not that dumb (or I imagine one can not be this dumb). You are intentionally ignoring rest of the post, and picking on a single sentence because you have nothing to counter. Sorry to blow your European dogma; Turks aren't slavers. Europeans were tho, one of the most brutal slavers in the history of mankind. Let your pride swallow it.

You seem like the type of person who would deny the Armenian Genocide ever happened.

If they are being kept against their will, and forced to perform labor or tasks, then they are slaves. Just because you have another word for them, does not change what they are:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slave

"1 : a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
2 : one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence
3 : a device (such as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another"

[Alydael]

When Europeans got to Africa and started colonizing, Africans were already enslaving each other. African warlords themselves sold slaves to European traders.

When Europeans started to colonize south america, the natives were already enslaving each other and holding mass sacrifices.

It's not like imperialism was solely responsible for breaking the peace in those places. They were already shit holes riddled with war, enslavement, racism and poverty/disease.

I guess no one "taught" him that part, ha ha.

All Nations and civilizations are guilty of some kind of crimes against themselves or other peoples as they rose to power and established themselves. The only thing is that each country also likes to make it look like they were the only "good" one and it was just everyone else doing those things. The naivety is astounding.

It reminds me of that woman that used to watch the chimps. She espoused how great and peaceful they were and how we could learn from them..... Then she saw what happened when they went to war with each other........ she stopped spouting that nonsense real quick. It was obvious though and she should have expected it.

It's unfortunate, but the world just isn't a peaceful place.

[Deleted]

Read the entire post, I explained how they were also not treated as slaves and had rights, opportunities and power that no slave in other civilizations had. Then again, you are not that dumb (or I imagine one can not be this dumb). You are intentionally ignoring rest of the post, and picking on a single sentence because you have nothing to counter. Sorry to blow your European dogma; Turks aren't slavers. Europeans were tho, one of the most brutal slavers in the history of mankind. Let your pride swallow it.

That they were treated well after being abducted, forcefully converted to Islam doesn't make it not slavery.

I don't particularly care who did what in times before I was born but to deny that slavery is slavery is just another kind of special.

Swallow what pride?

[Sliske]

Not at all here in Northern Ireland, but i grew up watching the Iraq / Afghan wars on TV, so you could say i had a pretty good grasp of what Western Imperialism was.

[Granyala]

Yes they did, esp the whole "take their resources at lowest possible effort but keep the knowledge what to do with these resources from them at all costs, so they won't be able to grow economically and challenge us eventually" bit.

[Waynhim]

For the colonies, this is a general yes. In India, Pakistan, Nepal etc. Its part of our regular courses to be taught of the various atrocities, the war crimes and racism that was inherent with colonialism and imperialism. Quiet often its followed with details how the independence leaders had to fight extremely hard to be considered equals and treated with respect.

The worst examples sited are usually the DRC and any colony the Portuguese illegally controlled like Angola.

In all these countries they treated eachother as shit way before the 1700-1800 Imperialism, some of these countries still do. Women's rights in particular.

[Flarelaine]

What is the number of household and harem slaves out of millions of Europeans and hundreds of years? As for Empire allowing it, I am glad your arguments are now backpaddled to "allowing" instead of actually being enslaver.

Dear, you really seem to have reading comprehension issues. I still do not care about tagging specific individuals - I hold the entire Empire responsible. I still do not care about niggling over numbers - enough people were carried away to depopulate the central regions of Hungary. But there is this sentence I quoted earlier:

The main sources of slaves were war captives and organized enslavement expeditions in North and East Africa, Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Caucasus.

There you have it. And good luck convincing anyone on these boards that Hungarians from the plains or Croats from their mountains were actually abducted by Barbary pirates. Not that it mattered to me, or any single one of my compatriots dragged to slavery.

Incidentally, there are also numerous contemporary illustrations of Turkish soldiers with their captives. Here:

[Kuntantee]

Janissary on a fucking horse with a baby on the pike. Sounds legit.

[Hif]

We do learn pretty comprehensibly about colonialism. But for school history, we have a lot of grounds to cover and only 8 years in high school level education to cover basically 3000 years of history on 5 continents. You will understand that we cannot take a uni-level course on colonialism and basically get a "best of" in a very European context.

About your accusation that our history education taints our view of immigration or refugee crisis, that's not the case. Quite the opposite. It's the uneducated fools that become Xenophobes. Not the people that do enjoy a proper school education. This isn't a European problem, this is a prevalent tendency all over the world. And we do understand that colonialism is very causal to a lot of the problems we see these days, that's why we're giving the British shit about that.

We do also realise, however, that things in the past are things we cannot change. We can only try to deal with it in the best way we know how. So we fucked up, what do you want us to do about it? The best we can do for the future is not repeat the same mistakes. One of those things is letting other countries fuck up, too. It's part of a natural evolutionary process they have to go through. Take the Islamic states. Most of them lack enlightenment. We have fought wars and had a lot of infighting over enlightenment. This is something that still needs to happen in Islamic countries. In that regard, especially countries like Saudi-Arabia and Iran are centuries behind Europe. Oh, they're modern in that they have the latest gadgets and cars and shit, but culturally they need to do a lot of catching up before they actually understand where we're coming from.

You are being very, very presumptuous and should probably take a step back and reflect on the stuff you're posting here. It's quite exaggerated.

- - - Updated - - -



This is my point exactly. History covers a lot more than some dipshit colonies suffering from oppression for a few hundred years. Heck, we've done that to each other in Europe for over 2k years as a sort of continental championship of asshattery.

You just said in your post earlier that your education on colonialism is based on the economic view point and thus shows little of the social and cultural devastation it wrought. Nor the fact that scientific racism was a prevalent ideology during the hey day of colonialism including both European and American academics who thougt being black was a skin disease. That if you were white you were in fact superior. Its not like Nazism or Facism was just created out of nothing.

As for the uneducated being xenophobes, I would completely understand that if it was China, India, Brazil or South Africa. Because people there are illiterate. Europe as a continent has a near 100% literacy rate. How is it possible that someone is deemed uneducated in Europe?

Please do tell me where I have been presumptuous? Because so far I have pointed out facts. We are welcome to discuss the situation in the Islamic world in another thread.

- - - Updated - - -

A couple of historical perspectives for you;

1. Primitive cultures are often absorbed by more advanced ones, and the advanced ones don't even have to be the ones doing the conquering. The Vikings conquered much of Northern Europe and some of the Mediterranean. Despite disposing of the previous ruling class and setting themselves atop thrones, their culture was overwhelmed by the more advanced, Christian culture they had became the masters of. The same happened to the Mongols when they conquered the Chinese and the Muslim empires. It also happened to the Muslims when they conquered the Persians and Byzantines, though they kept their religion, almost every other facet of their society became molded after the people they had just subjugated. So, the experience of African culture being heavily influenced by the Europeans who conquered them has more to do with the nature of African culture at the time than it does European. Like I said, the Indians and Chinese were being colonized by the same Europeans at the exact same time. Their cultures remained comparatively intact.

Yes they did remain intact. Only African cultures were destroyed. Because it wasn't only South Africa that had apartheid. Rhodesia did as well. Lets not forget the mass exterminations in the Belgian Congo. I also find it interesting you completely ignore the link on Scientific racism. Like not bothering with an ideology during colonial times that had thinkers during the enlightment who thought:

Meiner studied the physical, mental and moral characteristics of each race, and built a race hierarchy based on his findings. Meiners split mankind into two divisions, which he labelled the "beautiful white race" and the "ugly black race". In Meiners's book The Outline of History of Mankind, he said that a main characteristic of race is either beauty or ugliness. He thought only the white race to be beautiful. He considered ugly races to be inferior, immoral and animal-like.

The French naturalist Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon (1707–1788) and the German anatomist Johann Blumenbach (1752–1840) were believers in monogenism, the concept that all races have a single origin. They also believed in the "degeneration theory" of racial origins. They both said that Adam and Eve were Caucasian and that other races came about by degeneration from environmental factors, such as the sun and poor dieting. They believed that the degeneration could be reversed if proper environmental control was taken, and that all contemporary forms of man could revert to the original Caucasian race.[30]

They thought Negroid pigmentation arose because of the heat of the tropical sun. They suggested cold wind caused the tawny colour of the Eskimos. They thought the Chinese relatively fair skinned compared to the other Asian stocks because they kept mostly in towns and were protected from environmental factors. Buffon said that food and the mode of living could make races degenerate and differentiate them from the original Caucasian race.[30] According to Blumenbach, there are five races, all belonging to a single species: Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, American, and Malay. Blumenbach said:

"I have allotted the first place to the Caucasian for the reasons given below which make me esteem it the primeval one."[31]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...istoph_Meiners

2. The fact the africans were the bulk of slaves used by Europeans had far less to do with race than it did with economics and geography. First, the Africans were very primitive compared to the peoples that surrounded them and as such made easy targets. Second, they had a long coastline that just so happened to run along all the major trade routes to from Europe to the East. It would have been much more trouble to try and go overland to collect slaves from say, the slavic peoples (that's were we get the word slave by the way), when all you had to do in Africa was pull up to a port with some trade goods and take on the slaves in your cargo hold. Lastly, and very importantly, the Arabs and Berbers had been trading in African slaves for centuries prior to heavy European involvement. The markets already existed and they were already in the business of trading with various African tribes, warlords, and nations for their captives. The Europeans didn't go cutting through the bush in search of slaves. They just pulled in to port. None of this excuses the horror that was slavery, or the moral bankruptcy of those who participated in it, it just calls to question your notions about its nature, the motivations and its causes.

I would completely agree with that assumption if it wasn't for the fact that the prevalent thought process of the time was that being white was closer to god. Adam and Eve were white and being black made you lazy, dumb and inferior. And influential thinkers in the US and Europe used science to assert that view.

As for the slave trade before the Europeans come into the market; you are comparing a watermelon to a orange. The scale alone of the trans-atlantic slave trade had never seen before. Consider this why were no blacks in China during the era before the Europeans came into play? Its not like the Arabs had boats, or that they didn't travel as far as the Philippines. You don't see black desendents living there. However you do see them in the Americas - north and south. Its definitely not pulling up to port and buying a few dozen humans. Nope. Its pulling into port, actively going out and enslaving entire villages and communities.

I mean come on 10 million Africans were brought to the US alone.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-amer...ded-in-the-us/

Imagine how many more were transported to South America and the Carribean? Even if it is half of that, we are looking at 20 million in just this part of the world. 20 million african people. No other society did that in such a massive scale. And it wasn't based on the idea that its all economics, because it if it was just economics you would have enslaved white people too. Europeans didn't do that. They specifically targetted Africans.

You've a narrow view of history here. The west didn't just throttle from one extreme to another in 1965. It was gradual, and non-linear. It's steady march was driven by philosophies that saw their first prominence in the European 18th Century Enlightenment. Keep in mind that the British Empire, for all its brutality, was the driving force behind the halt of the trans-atlantic slave trade when they abolished slavery in 1833. Them doing this at the height of their power, when they had hegemony over the seas, is what severely curtailed the slave trade wherever they held dominion. The United States fought a brutal civil war over the single issue of slavery in the 1860s, and the practice had been one of the most hotly contested topics in American politics since the signing of the Declaration of Independence. I don't know of another example of a country inflicting that kind of horror upon itself on behalf of its slaves, but those who opposed it felt strongly enough about it to do so.

Your fallacy here is not in pointing out legitimate criticisms of European powers in the Colonial Era. It is in painting those failings as being unique to Europeans, or colonialism in that time, as being uniquely brutal. That requires an incredibly biased and narrow view of history. Various peoples have had their day in the sun, and none of been perfect angels when they did.

I never said it went from one extreme to another. I am merely pointing out that Europeans had two world wars, massive war crimes and massacres and decided never again because what 30% of their population was dead? Also the same 18 century enlightenment scholars preached black people were inferior becuase of their race and skin color. That is why you had the whole idea of europeans being the ideal civilization and communities. You and slant prove those teachings are still in effect. As for the UK and the US, a quick question was slavery economically feasible in 1833? After all you said it existed before the Europeans came into the game and all of a sudden just decided not to do so? And lets not take the Civil War in the US as an example pf doing something great. It was a start definitely and allowed them freedom, but 100 years of segregation, jim crow laws and the KKK being openly dominant is an example of how many still didn't consider Africans as equals.

- - - Updated - - -

In all these countries they treated eachother as shit way before the 1700-1800 Imperialism, some of these countries still do. Women's rights in particular.

Actually not true. The Hindu kingdoms of India were rather peaceful as was the time when Buddhism was the prevalent thought.

- - - Updated - - -

Is there any (major) civilization that do not think they are not the pinnacle of Civlization? Or they would be if not Mongols, Western etc trashed them....

Not because of their skin color and that they were closer to god than everyone else. I don't think any other eastern civilization has made that claim.

- - - Updated - - -

Skin colour really became a thing with the Americans. Europeans didn't consider "white skin" superior or "brown people" inferior. They thought everyone but Europe inferior, period. Skin colour didn't matter. If you were in India, you were considered inferior. I mean, they conquered half the planet, you can't blame them for developing a god complex.

I think the only thing becoming clear in this thread is that you're actually the racist here. The way you keep attacking the West and pretend we don't know our history. We do. We know it better than you. There's just a lot more to cover than colonialism for Europe.

Incorrect. As this link proves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

[Zoibert the Bear]

For the colonies, this is a general yes. In India, Pakistan, Nepal etc. Its part of our regular courses to be taught of the various atrocities, the war crimes and racism that was inherent with colonialism and imperialism. Quiet often its followed with details how the independence leaders had to fight extremely hard to be considered equals and treated with respect.

The worst examples sited are usually the DRC and any colony the Portuguese illegally controlled like Angola.

I'm from Spain and I was taught how Spaniards, in a glorious task imposed by God Himself, took sail to the indies and ended up conquering and educating the oh poor people of South, Central and North America in a raw lecture about western civilization and religious ideals.

By no means was I told that even though this marked the beginning on the Age of Discovery, Europeans actually massacred local populations and several other atrocious crimes. So I guess that never happened ey?

/s

Now, I do hope that my dear Muslim neighbors across the Gibraltar strait are lectured about the invasion and systematic conquest of the Iberian peninsula, along with the repression of freedom and short-but-forceful conversion to Islam that went on for centuries. Oh wait, they're actually told that Spain and Portugal still belong to them and should be conquered in a religious war via Yihad.

Who'd know.

[Hif]

I'm from Spain and I was taught how Spaniards, in a glorious task imposed by God Himself, took sail to the indies and ended up conquering and educating the oh poor people of South, Central and North America in a raw lecture about western civilization and religious ideals.

By no means was I told that even though this marked the beginning on the Age of Discovery, Europeans actually massacred local populations and several other atrocious crimes. So I guess that never happened ey?

/s

Now, I do hope that my dear Muslim neighbors across the Gibraltar strait are lectured about the invasion and systematic conquest of the Iberian peninsula, along with the repression of freedom and short-but-forceful conversion to Islam that went on for centuries. Oh wait, they're actually told that Spain and Portugal still belong to them and should be conquered in a religious war via Yihad.

Who'd know.

While you are being sarcastic, wasnt this the same age and era where Kings and Queens wanted to spread the word of god to the uncivilized? Oh look it was:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathol...e_of_Discovery

The convent of San Augustin. A mission centre established at Yuriria, Mexico in 1550
The Catholic Church during the Age of Discovery inaugurated a major effort to spread Christianity in the New World and to convert the indigenous peoples of the Americas and other indigenous people. The evangelical effort was a major part of, and a justification for the military conquests of European powers such as Spain, France and Portugal. Christian Missions to the indigenous peoples ran hand-in-hand with the colonial efforts of Catholic nations. In the Americas and other colonies in Asia and Africa, most missions were run by religious orders such as the Franciscans, Dominicans, Augustinians, and Jesuits. In Mexico the early systematic evangelization by mendicants came to be known as the "Spiritual Conquest of Mexico."[1]

So your education did you a great service. Teachng you that! Well done on your school!