Colonization Ethics

>Colonization was good
>Colonization was bad

Good because it brought education and technology
Bad because it allowed slavery, corruption, theft, rape and kidnap

Have I got it right?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radcliffe_Line
twitter.com/AnonBabble

nobody likes living under the jackboot of weirdos who look different from you, speak a different language, and come from very far away, even if they pave the streets with gold and that's all it comes down to

The question is do you see tech and education as good an slavery and rape as Bad thinks? If you ask if something was/is good/bad you just end up with a moral question:with which values do you wanna live and judge actions?

>Whites leave Rhodesia
>Blacks starving to death within months
>But at least they aren't oppressed anymore xDDDD
There was literally nothing wrong with colonisation.

Colonization was bad because they ended it like retards. Africa would currently be far better off if power was gradually given to the Africans over a century, educating them and teaching them to maintain their own societies. Cheaper than easier to just leave them on their own I guess and bleeding heart morons were none the wiser.

They weren't starving to death before the whites came either. The fact that they were starving more or less proves that colonisation was an abject failure. It taught them nothing.

Colonisation was not meant to teach them anything.

That's the point most anti-colonialists make. Usually pro-colonialists usually make the opposite point, "white man's burden" etc. I'd be curious to see what your take is.

>Colonization was bad because they ended it like retards. Africa would currently be far better off if power was gradually given to the Africans over a century, educating them and teaching them to maintain their own societies.
That was one of the official arguments for colonization but of course they forgot it as soon as they reached the diamond mines

>africa is the global symbol for colonialism and the example that people use to show that colonialism works
>no one takes into an account of the indian subcontinent which was colonized for a longer time, caused far more suffering due to a larger population, was left destitute and is objectively a better place after they got rid of the colonizers.

explain this Veeky Forums.

African colonisation was terrible because it was focussed mainly on exploiting the populace and the land for resources. The colonisers had very little interest in furthering the wellbeing of the natives and were pretty much focussed on building infrastructure which allowed the extraction of resources to continue. A bad side effect of this is when power was relinquished to the Africans, very few knew how to run a country or were poorly educated due to being barred from any form of bureaucratic or political experience which just allowed military strongmen to seize control (see the Congo)

In contrast, colonisation which involved the moving of settlers to a certain area did incredibly well as infrastructure was given proper funding, the populace was encouraged to participate in politics and the wellbeing of colonisers was actually taken into consideration.

So generally, it's bad
Or was a decent idea with a horrible execution.

If the white people followed their own propaganda colonisation could have been successful but instead of making "civilised men" of natives it made barbarians of Europeans.

>good
>bad

> implying western medicine, sanitation and agriculture methods didn't cause many places populations to go up exponentially
"colonization" emancipated those places from nature. I don't see former colony countries returning our techs if we were so bad, they can attribute their comfy modern living to colonization.

Don't make me feel for Rhodesia. I could have been bet that aus

>objectively a better place after they got rid of the colonizer
Hah you fucking what. The first thing the Indians did to get colonialism over quicker was to assassinate Ghandi, then proceeded to murder the shit out of each other in mass genocides while Hindus fled to India and Muslims to Pakistan.

They didn't let the Brits divide the borders cleanly because the ethnography and language of India is so fucking complicated.

India is fucked unless it's unified under an aggressive power. The Mughals, Maryuans, Britain, all at least attempted to quiet the squabbling Rajs

So why pursue it?

That's a good sound byte

>gandhi
who was literally irrelevant in India after 1942. Gandhi wasn't a member of the congress party. He was a private citizen held in relatively high regard. Gandhi dying made him a martyr and ruined a huge section of indian politics.

>they didn't let the brits divide the borders
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radcliffe_Line
>. It was named after its architect, Sir Cyril Radcliffe, who, as chairman of the Border Commissions, was charged with equitably dividing 175,000 square miles (450,000 km2) of territory with 88 million people.
>Cyril John Radcliffe, 1st Viscount Radcliffe GBE PC QC (30 March 1899 – 1 April 1977) was a British lawyer and Law Lord best known for his role in the partition of British India. He served as the inaugural Chancellor of the University of Warwick from its foundation in 1965 to 1977.

hmm.

You forgot about the part where it says "cleanly" you ding dong

>Brits
>Dividing cleanly anything
Their failure at dividing ME countries is the root of every problem this region got right now
>Hey guys let's put chiites, sunnites and kurdes in the same cunt and let them take care together of who rules it. What could go wrong?

>cleanly
the brits literally had years to do it and they did it at the 11th hour, didn't facilitate population transfers and left the country when all hell broke loose. They fucked up like they always do and blamed someone else.

>India is fucked
>doing better on every metric ranging from civil liberty to government representation to healthcare and education.
>people have a voice in their governments and incredibly high voter turnouts.
>Poverty being reduced.
I want /pol/tards to bugger themselves with the union jack.

Nobody forgot, it just fell apart after WWII between institutional discrimination making a government literally Hitler and commies agitating the locals towards revolution.

Just look at the Belgian Congo; they tried to institute democracy and what happened was that all the old tribal conflicts came roaring back, the country fell into civil war, the Belgians (and other minority groups) were genocided and the entire country started sliding into the hell it is today.

They weren't genocided.

Yeah, they were.

Important to note is that e.g. africans had slavery, and experienced slavery for centuries before the Europeans colonized it.

All races in the world have practiced slavery, only one abolished it.

But yeah, colonization was for the most part bad for the people it happened to.

>it's a white guilt-defense post

No they weren't. That not considered a genocide and Belgians were much less hit then other groups but had the benefit of being the only relevant one you can name drop and people would react to.

I'm not even white

Euro states were first not the only ones that abolished it. Also it was replaced with "slavery in all but name" replacements and it was mostly abolished to increase the number of consumers as well as making the economy better run. Chattel slavery was only a thing in the new world and parts of Arabia.

Not to mention it wasn't all at once. It was "no slavery at home but okay in colonies" then later on it spread to those colonies after a period.