Pros and cons of Colonialism?

[Longhorn]

Boring and unimaginative. Try harder next time pls

[Neo-Scholastic]

If those other counties had had the means they'd have done the same or worse to the West. No one is innocent. Many of those cultures were brutalizing each other long before Europeans came along. The Sioux fought the Cherakee. The Navaho fought the Apatche. Winners aren't always bad and losers aren't all saints.

[abaris]

If those other counties had had the means they'd have done the same or worse to the West. No one is innocent. Many of those cultures were brutalizing each other long before Europeans came along. The Sioux fought the Cherakee. The Navaho fought the Apatche. Winners aren't always bad and losers aren't all saints.

That's a classic. Pointing fingers and saying, they did it too. As if that would make it any better, even when leaving out the major difference between tribal scuffles and outright conquest, with the only goal of exploiting a region and it's inhabitants for national gain. The most abyssmal experiment of all being the Kongo, privately owned by the Belgian king. The rule there was outright genocidal.

Which, partly, is responsible for a lot of the troubles we see today. A look at a map of the Middle East or Africa tells the tale quite clearly. No nation has straight borders, if it has grown naturally. These states are the results of colonial bureaucrats, sitting in their comfy offices at London, Paris, Brussels or Berlin and dividing the loot between them. Or to determine monocultural regions and structuring the economy accordingly. Giving no regards to the different ethnicities, cultures, religions, being forced into one big boiling kettle.

[Faith No More]

If those other counties had had the means they'd have done the same or worse to the West. No one is innocent. Many of those cultures were brutalizing each other long before Europeans came along. The Sioux fought the Cherakee. The Navaho fought the Apatche. Winners aren't always bad and losers aren't all saints.

Did you just tu quoque genocide?

Whatever lets you sleep at night.

[drfuzzy]

Poe.
Very very stupid, shit and run poe.
Another thread he probably started and won't revisit.

Can we ban him now?

[Minimalist]

If those other counties had had the means they'd have done the same or worse to the West. No one is innocent. Many of those cultures were brutalizing each other long before Europeans came along. The Sioux fought the Cherakee. The Navaho fought the Apatche. Winners aren't always bad and losers aren't all saints.

Try, just once Chad, to learn what the fuck you are talking about BEFORE you open your mouth.

http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/1441

After the Indian Nations on the Northern Plains acquired the horse in the eighteenth century, warfare became more common. Northern Plains warfare, however, was very different from the warfare waged by European countries and later by the United States: it was not usually waged by one tribe against another. War was not waged to conquer other nations. While there were battles in which people were killed, the purpose of war was not to kill people. 

To slaughter whole populations required that xtian shitball of a god you claim to admire.

[SteelCurtain]

If those other counties had had the means they'd have done the same or worse to the West. No one is innocent. Many of those cultures were brutalizing each other long before Europeans came along. The Sioux fought the Cherakee. The Navaho fought the Apatche. Winners aren't always bad and losers aren't all saints.

The ultimate in ironic disrespect is that you spelled 3/4 of those tribal names incorrectly. It also reveals that you know next to nothing about what went on in America. Revisionist history and American "exceptionalism" are truly awful things. (ETA: also the Sioux had next to no contact with the Cherokee.)

I'd ask you to read about Andrew Jackson, the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, the "Indian Problem," and the Trail of Tears, but I doubt you will. It might upset your "Gone with the Wind" version of American history.

There is a difference between tribal disputes and the doctrine of Manifest Destiny, where it was believed that God had made the entire continent of America for the express consumption of white American settlers, and that anything and anyone in their way was by definition against God. Especially those savages that just wouldn't listen and abandon their culture and way of life for the white god and his measles and diseases that killed their children.

There is a difference between tribal disputes and European colonization and the genocide and veritable extinction of some of the most advanced civilizations in the Mexica and Inca.

To wipe out the genocide of more than 20 million people by saying they would have done it to us if they could is sheer foolishness. The chattel slavery of tens of millions of Africans can be tacked onto that number. All defended until no longer convenient to do so by Bible thumpers.

[TheRealJoeFish]

Pros to colonialism:

---

Barbara Stolz (née Dix on 28 June 1941) is a retired German gymnast. She competed at the 1964 Summer Olympics in all artistic gymnastics events and finished in fourth place with the German team. Her best individual result was 39th place in the uneven bars.

---

Cons to colonialism:

---

Canarium denticulatum grows up to 30 metres (100 ft) tall with a trunk diameter of up to 50 centimetres (20 in). The bark is smooth and grey-white. The flowers are white. The ellipsoid fruits measure up to 3 cm (1 in) long.

---

[paulpablo]

abaris

If those other counties had had the means they'd have done the same or worse to the West. No one is innocent. Many of those cultures were brutalizing each other long before Europeans came along. The Sioux fought the Cherakee. The Navaho fought the Apatche. Winners aren't always bad and losers aren't all saints.

abaris said

That's a classic. Pointing fingers and saying, they did it too. As if that would make it any better, even when leaving out the major difference between tribal scuffles and outright conquest, with the only goal of exploiting a region and it's inhabitants for national gain. The most abyssmal experiment of all being the Kongo, privately owned by the Belgian king. The rule there was outright genocidal.

Which, partly, is responsible for a lot of the troubles we see today. A look at a map of the Middle East or Africa tells the tale quite clearly. No nation has straight borders, if it has grown naturally. These states are the results of colonial bureaucrats, sitting in their comfy offices at London, Paris, Brussels or Berlin and dividing the loot between them. Or to determine monocultural regions and structuring the economy accordingly. Giving no regards to the different ethnicities, cultures, religions, being forced into one big boiling kettle.

I don't see how anything you typed did anything to dismiss any of the claims made by the post you were replying to.

He didn't start his post off by saying "What I'm about to state will make the genocides of the past, better."  So I don't understand why you would start your post off by saying pointing fingers won't make it better, as if that's what he set out to do.
If you graded people's posts on this forum on the basis of how much they make the genocides of the past better you could say all our posts are pretty crap.

I think what chadwooters was saying is that tribal people used the technology and ability they had to kill and enslave people, so it's not a hugely contraversial claim to say that if they had better technology (ocean faring, gunpowder, stirrups.)  They would have still  used that technology to kill and enslave people.

But then saying that I don't think chadwooters post really did address the pros and cons of colonialism.

In my opinion, pros and cons of conquest and colonisation in general would be a difficult question to seriously answer. 

If you want to say if something is good or bad or not it has to be relative to something else, it would be difficult to imagine a world where colonization didn't happen.
 You'd basically be deleting the history of the world, starting fresh and then asking someone to take a guess as to if it would be better if a certain form of natural human action never took place ever.
My country for example, England, was invaded by the Romans, Germanic tribes, The vikings, The normans, The danish.  That's before England itself went on to colonize quite a lot of the entire world.

The pros to this would probably be that the people with better technology and organization would be able to capture more resources and carry on producing advanced technology. 

The colonized are forcibly thrust into a world of better technology, whether that's good or bad is subjective.

The cons would be lots of slavery and death, increased pollution and human overpopulation from all the advanced technology.

[abaris]

I don't see how anything you typed did anything to dismiss any of the claims made by the post you were replying to.

So you don't get it? He's offsetting something he perceives to be wrong against another thing, many perceive to be wrong. The implication, even if not outspoken, is clear. They would have done it too, so what we have done wasn't that bad after all.

Based on what, is the first question coming to mind, since these tribal scuffles really can't be compared to what the so called European explorers and settlers did. It is indeed a classic of pointing fingers at history, to make the own side look better.