The Cold War-Communism vs Colonialism

[Berzerker]

http://www.mayaparadise.com/ufc1e.htm

We were "debating" this at another forum and it dawned on me that the Cold War was a fraud sold to us by corporate America to protect stolen lands primarily in the 3rd world obtained by force or bribing dictators left over from the colonial period.

The link above is a great example of the threat land reform - "communism" - posed to western corporations.

The Domino Theory was not about the spread of communism, it was about the spread of land reform. With the possible exception of Korea, it seems most of the Cold War conflicts occured in 3rd world countries recently freed from colonial powers or their puppet dictators and their descendents.

The French in Vietnam, the Dutch in East Timor, the Spanish in Latin America, and a variety of European powers in Africa. The colonial (imperial) powers were extracting resources from 3rd world countries and didn't want land reform that sought to return some or all of the lands stolen under colonialism.

The US with its heritage of "Manifest Destiny" was primed to become the main enforcer of preserving the ill-gotten gains of the colonial period once the Europeans could no longer defend their overseas assets because of 2 world wars whereas the US, with the notable exception of the Phillipines taken from Spain following the Spanish-American War, limited itself to occasional invasions of Latin America (and Hawaii).

But having assumed overt or covert control of much of the western hemisphere, the US could not afford to let land reform spread in the old world since it would eventually spread here. So we got stuck fighting the Cold War in both hemispheres.

Is this far-fetched? Follow the money...

[Az]

You're a disgusting, freedom hating commie, Berzie. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[joncha]

Why do you hate America, Berzerker?

[Berzerker]

I was hoping for a bit more than the usual retort from the left

[Az]

Lemme surprise you:

-In most cases European imperialism was a force for good.
-However, in the 20th century, imperialism was a force for evil when it fought the democratization of said societies, and their economies.

[Berzerker]

-In most cases European imperialism was a force for good.

Whose good? In most cases native populations were slaughtered and their lands stolen. Sounds like "we had to destroy the village to save it"...

[Az]

Whose good? In most cases native populations were slaughtered and their lands stolen. Sounds like "we had to destroy the village to save it"...

Generally, good. In most case native populations were slaughtered only to a slightly larger extent that they would've been slaughtered by their bretheren, and the concept of introducing many technologies, and social engineering to the native peoples, followed by rapidly expanding trade led to an enormous increase in worldwide wealth which helped usher the modern age.

For who's good? That's actually a very good question, but it has an answer. The fact that the people who gained the most of imperialism were the the children of the imperialist people, or other whities doesn't really matter - People are people.

So, to recap:

-Since the morals of most of the natives of the time didn't preclude genocide by conqueror, no actual expectation utilities existed on the issue.
-Much more people were allowed to live and flourish in the imperial era than before.
-The ethnicity of said people shouldn't have mattered.

Btw, to thwart any claims of hypocricy by my side, let me say that I support the Roman empire, Since it was a force for good, even though it was instrumental in the destruction of the ancient Israeli kingdom, and should be against "my nationality".

[Sir Og]

So Az you'r basicaly saying that it is OK if a significantly more advanced nation conquers a less advanced one and starts exploiting it's resources and impose their values on the less advanced people.

[Az]

I don't say that it's always ok, but I am saying that there are cases under which imperialism is ok, and that generally, european imperialism was a positive force. "Imposing their values" is also sometimes justified, like when a code of law that is being imposed is much more ethical ( This actually wasn't the case in the case of european imperialism )

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Az

Lemme surprise you:

-In most cases European imperialism was a force for good.

That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard . Just in case you want to know , India's share of the world economy at time the British came to India : 22 % . Europe's share at the same time : 23 % .

When they left India , India's share was : 2 % .

"Force for the good . . . . ." ? Really ? Not good for India , at least .

[Az]

When they left India, it was fricking 48'. Half of the WORLD'S GDP was in the USA. Also, I wonder what are the numbers for worldwide PPP at the time the British arrived and at the time they left.

The numbers you've just posted don't really amount to much.

Btw, I don't deny the possibility that India was an exception.

[aneeshm]

One big exception , that . . . . . .

[Az]

It's just a possibility, don't wet your pants just yet.

[Sandman]

Is China an exception too?

[Az]

Probably not, ( the same answer holds for India, btw) since the interference of the west was much much smaller than India, and China was suffering from internal decay for centuries ( which allowed the west to force concessions from it). The places where the west had strongholds in china were points of prosperity, as well. It's true for the trading points of the british, and even the Russian influence in the north.