How bad was colonialism really?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I honestly believe the truth lies some where in the middle which is why I posted this thread. Some people, though, can't seem to get beyond their knee jerk reactions or entrenched political positions. I hope we can all avoid that in the future.

WTF Oerdin? Colonialism was not good for Africa. If it was Africa would be a good place to live today. Get over it. There's no tendency for the truth to be in the "middle somewhere." Just becuase there are roads now, doesn't mean life is better in Africa. Sure their lives are longer, but they just live longer lives that are just as crappy.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I didn't start with Congo. Time Magazine did and I just posted the article and asked the question. Please learn that quoted authors are not me and I speak for myself not for them or vis versa.

Why did you post such a remarkably stupid article?

[CrONoS]

it's sad that the Congolese men with which I spoke last year were also brainwashed, since they were also saying that Belgium did bring them some good thing. (Since I study in Quebec, we have a lot of french speaking Africans and Arabs)

From Wiki:

Conditions in the Congo improved following the Belgian government's takeover. Select Bantu languages were taught in primary schools, a rare occurrence in colonial education. Colonial doctors were to greatly reduce the spread of African trypanosomiasis, commonly known as sleeping sickness. The colonial administration implemented a variety of economic reforms that focused on the improvement of infrastructure: railways, ports, roads, mines, plantations and industrial areas. The Congolese people, however, lacked political power and faced legal discrimination. All colonial policies were decided in Brussels and Leopoldville. The Belgian Colony-secretary and Governor-general, neither of whom was elected by the Congolese people, wielded absolute power. Among the Congolese people, resistance against their undemocratic regime grew over time. In 1955, the Congolese upper class (the so-called "évolués"), many of whom had been educated in Europe, initiated a campaign to end the inequality.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Kidicious
There's no tendency for the truth to be in the "middle somewhere."

that's true, that's why we spoke about reality here, not truth! And Belgium did bring them some good things.

[Bosh]

Yes but then there was the whole slavery, hiring cannibals as enforcers and cutting off the hands of people who didn't give them enough rubber thing:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/MutilatedChildrenFromCongo.jpg

I think that outweighs anything "good" that the Belgians did.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by CrONoS


that's true, that's why we spoke about reality here, not truth! And Belgium did bring them some good things.

Roads, bridges, ports etc... Those can all be used to create wealth, but for living standards to increase you need education.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Roads, bridges, ports etc... Those can all be used to create wealth, but for living standards to increase you need education.

that's a good question; does colonialism bring mass education for the people?

I wonder if religious order were not doing the job there...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by CrONoS


that's a good question; does colonialism bring mass education for the people?

I wonder if religious order were not doing the job there...

That's not a good question at all, and don't blame me for asking it.

[Berzerker]

Nobody is asking for immediate since more then six decades have passed. I notice that Asia got over the evils of colonialism much faster so the line that everything bad is the white guys fault wears thin.

I dont know, sounds to me like they are getting back to normal.
Not everyone in the world desires a "modern" life, and colonialism was a departure from the life they had.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Bosh
Yes but then there was the whole slavery, hiring cannibals as enforcers and cutting off the hands of people who didn't give them enough rubber thing:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/MutilatedChildrenFromCongo.jpg

I think that outweighs anything "good" that the Belgians did.

King Leopold didn't had too much respect for their lives.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Sure their lives are longer, but they just live longer lives that are just as crappy.

Not actually sure that is true. From what I've read (take that for what it's worth) there was a major drop in both living standards and life span under European rule compared to what came after, and again under post-colonialism. It's only been with wide spread health campaigns and the green revolution that the life span of Africans has increased in the last few decades.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by CrONoS
Conditions in the Congo improved following the Belgian government's takeover.

That's compared to direct rule by King Leopold as opposed to prior to colonization.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


That's compared to direct rule by King Leopold as opposed to prior to colonization.

Yes it would take real skill NOT to improve upon The Heart of Darkness.

[David Floyd]

Look. Africa wasn't going to succeed (in the sense that Europe succeeded) no matter what. It's not a matter of racism. And chegitz, by the way, your comment that this thread was "the most racist you had seen lately" was patently offensive, and an example of a typical liberal tactic - if you disagree with something, point out your disagreement by equating the topic with racism rather than addressing the point at hand. Yes, you did make some points, but why you felt the need to throw the racism label around is both unknown and ridiculous.

You have to look at why Europe became as powerful of a region as it did, compared to the rest of the world. In 1200, Europe was essentially nothing compared to China and the Middle East. But 500 years later, European states were imposing their will on, essentially, the world. This didn't happen because white people are superior, it happened, IMO, for a very simple reason: competition. Europe is SMALL, geographically, yet it historically contained a large number of competing factions. This competition, by which I mean war, led to quick progress in many fields - military technology itself, agriculture (to feed the armies), economics (to pay for the armies - England was able to defeat much larger powers throughout history by the simple fact that it's international credit was so good it could borrow more money at lower rates than, say, France), medicine, and many others.

In contrast, Africa was never this competitive. Sure, there were various quasi-successful states (following Ancient Egypt), such as Mali, Zulu, etc., but there was never really a push to expand and improve. Again, this isn't racism, it's just historical fact.

OK, so the colonial period begins, and European nations start moving in and conquering and exploiting huge tracts of land in Africa. This naturally wasn't done out of altruistic motives - Europe shipped resources out, both human and material, and greatly profitted from it. To facilitate this, though, the Europeans - especially the British - built infrastructure. Roads, railroads, factories, hospitals, etc. - none of this really existed before the Europeans came. Yes, it was for their benefit, but it didn't only benefit them. Hell, bringing in Christianity and dismantling a lot of the tribalistic religions was good for the region. If not for colonialism, I find it laughable to think that Africa would have developed much of this on it's own.

The bottom line is, Europe developed as it did for a reason. If not for colonialism, you can certainly argue that currently Europe and by extension the US would not be as rich as they are, but you can also say that Africa would be poorer by an order of magnitude. Yeah, you can't "prove" a counterfactual, by any other analysis makes no sense at all. I'm not saying colonialism was morally right, or justified, I'm just saying that it was ultimately beneficial.

[David Floyd]

Not everyone in the world desires a "modern" life, and colonialism was a departure from the life they had.

True, but most people who don't want a modern life have never had one, either. Yeah, there are the occasional crazies in the US, mostly eco-liberals (read: '*****) from California, who think living in the jungle is pure, but then again, those idiots have conversely never NOT lived a modern life. I rather suspect that the vast majority of people who have experienced BOTH vastly prefer modernity.