Interesting observation about small nations. Perhaps they felt the need to ‘punch above their weight’ - in this case quite literally ‘punch’ (and beat and torture). But nothing the Dutch did in their colonies came even close to the scale of cruelty of the Belgians in Congo.
The historical tidbits which are left out of your pro con list are upsetting to the entire evaluation. The Bengal Famine: How the British engineered the worst genocide in human history for profit After taking over from the Mughal rulers, the British had issued widespread orders for cash crops to be cu…
Well, I did consider the Bengal famines and you’re the first to bring up this valid point. When it comes to atrocities the British obviously committed these on a larger scale because of their bigger empire. The comparison is based on general rule. Like someone from Indonesia commented, they were env…
Read more
Ozgur Zeren
That’s not the Bengal famine Paul. That’s what British traders did to India starting from mid 1700s. Manipulating grain price to make profit, creating artificial famines and killing untold dozens of millions in the process… The atrocities of the British are not due to the size of the empire at all - it is tied to its rapacious, sociopath business model. The same atrocity for profit was carried over to China after the opium war, selling opium to Chinese, killing ~20 million/year in the process to profit. And defending it as ‘free trade’. While not letting Chinese to open opium dens in Britain and export opium to Britain and do the same. Other state or private entities never did anything similar - killing people for profit as a business model.
you do not have to venture that far. Look at the famine in Ireland. It was totally unnecessary if the Brits would not have taken away the grain crops from the Irish folks who where basically vassals of the Brits, when the potato crops failed. No one owes anyone anything in humane history. This is a…
Read more
Max Davis
Well there’s a lot more to that famine. The huge population boom in Ireland coupled with probably the poorest country in Europe. Other important factors was that anyone who owned lands there didn’t live there and more importantly is the huge reliance the Irish people had on potatoes. I think I saw that 30–50% of Irish people were completely reliant on them, there would’ve been huge casualties no matter what. Of course the British are still to blame for not making it illegal to export food but unfortunately they were on a no interruption policy which was literally the last thing needed then.
在東南亞，兩者都是相對“不干涉”的殖民者，而西班牙則力求同化和改變他們的臣民。但兩者都比西班牙差得多。至少西班牙沒有奴役基督徒同胞，並且傾向於在他們皈依後釋放奴隸。他們還有Leyes Nuevas（新法），與普遍人權有關的法律的最早例子之一。西班牙將其殖民地的土著視為真正的王室臣民，並為他們建造公共基礎設施和服務。種族通婚也沒有恥辱感。這就是為什麼 P
I personally don’t consider it balanced to point to negatives of colonization without a benchmark. Slavery for example: Was slavery in that region the norm? Did the colonizer increased the number and conditions of slaves? Did it build the groundwork of the end of slavery? These are the relevant questions.
What makes the question difficult is that at the end of colonization many changes happened which are normally considered positive but are a general product of Western development. Positive:
-Increase in population through improvement in agriculture, health care, availability of clean drinking w
Sponsored by Mind Health AI
A conversational AI, able to interpret people’s feelings.
Talk about mental wellbeing without the pressure of seeing a therapist.
Enjoys reading history. Travel to over 25 countries.3y
Colonisation is, at best, a mixed bag. A native say of both Indonesia and India would best answer as to it's ills. As regards any possible uses of colonisation for the colonised country, you could ask: was a proper civil service created; was a good education system set up; was rail, road and port infrastructure created and left behind?
It's asking or saying… choose which weapon can I kill with you 1 AK 47 2 Knife. In short, both of the weapons are killers, it doesn't matter which one chooses. Colonialization is very bad and it has a negative impact too.
Sponsored by Jobicy
Inpsyde is hiring a remote Senior Full Stack WordPress Developer.
Solid knowledge and working experience with PHP and JavaScript (specifically React), HTML.
What a divisive question. I bet there’ll be few, if any, answers from native peoples of the countries actually colonised by these nations, only staunch defenders of British and Dutch pride (mainly British I expect).
Your question is rather odd. How can colonialization be a good thing. It was never a good thing, regardless of the perspective one is looking from. The purpose of colonialization is to plunder the resources and exploitation of the locals. At the same time destroying the local culture and heritage by forcing the locals to change their way of life. Those who resisted were always met with death and destruction.
Colonialization is no different from invasion, it's done in a more subtle way.
Dutch by origin, so a native speaker, and on top of that trained to proof-read3y
Well, ultimately both were of course, in hindsight, equally bad. Plundering, enslaving, and so on. Not too much to be proud of in that sense.
Other than that, your question lacks a unit of measure. Better in terms of what? Square meters ruled? Furthest away? Most resources plundered? Most natives kille...
Colonialization was not good, none of them. It led to innocent people being killed, the riches of their countries stolen and the source of inequality in today's world.
沒有留言:
張貼留言
注意：只有此網誌的成員可以留言。