Was colonialism a good idea in the long run?

Was colonialism a good idea in the long run?

It depends. The Spanish and Portuguese model was better in the sense that it lasted longer and left a more profound influence on their subjects. For example Latin American and Philippine culture.

for the mother countries yes. it was exploitation at its finest. good times

Yes. Without colonialism brought civilization to the savages. Just as the Romans brought order to the Untamed lands of Iberia, Gaul, Britannia, and parts of germania. The white man brought enlightenment to the dark savages that inhabited the landfills of the earth. If these people are not able to take and vantage of the gift they've been given that is there own fault.

>short term
Yes. Free stuff.
>medium term
No. Free stuff from the colonies caused European nations to cling to mercanalist economics and hindered development.
>long term
Yes. Formerly colonized nations = poverty = cheap labor.

In some situations perhaps, in others no. Belgian Congo was not a good idea for example, at least not for Congo.

Doesn't really matter since it was an inevitability.

This.

Now those poor places can be easily manipulated/controlled with much much less money because you don't have to waste money on them with upkeep and maintenance.

they should have been actively genociding africa, would have solved most of the problems we have today

The non-edgy normie answer is no

This is a poor question. Good for whom?

tl;dr colonialism wasn't necessary for technology to spread and this is what needs to be examined the most

Japan is a good case study. Modern liberals scold America for making "unfair deals" with Japan and forcing open the ports, yet Japanese merchants and clans would have benefited from the low tariffs, in fact they did and Japan was flooded with imports and innovations transforming the economy long before the Meiji restoration which only occupied the tail end of this period of development when they could start to support heavy industry. It was mostly """""""unfair""""""" to the central government at the time which was a brutal autocracy, the government being an object of worship to leftist academics even though the Shogunate was little more moral than any other government at the time, western or not.

Regardless, Japan clearly didn't need to be colonized to adopt new technology and I doubt it could remain isolationist forever even if America never opened up the ports as the technology gap widened and clans saw the benefits of dealing with westerners. It seems the main limitations to development were physical, merchants would sail around the world and have an impact whatever the policies of central governments and colonial policies had little effect on either delaying or speeding up progress. Japan as a secure temperate island and places like Hong Kong and Singapore were ideal places to center industry in a region. Likewise Britain was less chaotic than Europe at the time. If you were connected to the global market and had capital to invest or some new untested technology to implement your best chances would be in Britain.

>Free stuff from the colonies caused European nations to cling to mercantilist economics and hindered development.
Mercantilism was the standard before colonialism so I don't think this made much difference.

> Formerly colonized nations = poverty
You may be confusing cause and effect. Nations were often colonized because they had poor environments and could not support the military needed to fend off europeans. These poor environments in turn contributed to lack of development and poverty.

the raj was completely the opposite.
The british military record was pretty trashy during the early 1700s.

Yes. Half of Africa was still in the stone age, nomatter how edgy that sounds. They progressed thosands of years in just a few decades thanks to colonialism. THe success of South Africa, Zimbabwe-Rhodesia pre Mugabe and Nigeria are good examples, as were the Portuguese colonies of Mozambique and Angola, which are now anarchic shitholes.


It's only a matter of time before China starts colonising the vacuum Europeans left behind, therefore European powers must start colonisation again or be left behind.

Colonialism was not only the right of European powers, it was their duty.

Yes. Land, manpower and resources gained cheaply by conquering peoples unable of self-defense.

Yes. And the only reason why it became controversial to say it is, is because in the mid-20th century people realized that it could be done under the banner of globalism in much more subtler and humane ways, rather than the whole ideological and punitive methods required for real imperialism (which is the more correct term for this case).

Colonialism in practice? No.
Colonialism as suggested by John Stuart Mill? Absolutely.

Long term yes. Africa now has the potential to reach the same power as western countries when they couldn't pre colonization.

Not accusing you of this, but
These are two opinions I often hear from the same person, lately:

Colonialism:
"Was a good idea bros, we brought them barbars out of the stone age. Now look at how competitive they are on the global stage. We're all interconnected. Forget the mistreatment of indigenous populations. Forget their traditions. Forget their culture. This is the future."

Globalism:
"I don't want to learn computer science to compete in a modern economy. I want to make 60K with a manufacturing job like I could 40 years ago. Everyone needs to start buying local goods, ignore the internet, and tarrif the fuck out of other nations. Surely, this is how we'll stay ahead of all the nations trading and innovating. Plus, Soros wants to steal muh culture and muh tradition"

this Trump's protectionism is a shit

the irony is there is a strong demand for specific trades and businesses are always complaining about a skills shortage, the main problem seems to be people are unaware of this or don't know how to obtain these skills

t. person who missed the point of the white man's burden

You presume that everyone is capable of being a computer programmer, they are not.

You presume that even if they were, that they wouldn't be competing with foreign slave labor, they would be.

You presume that there is something wrong with low or average skill workers wanting to be able to make a decent living at the only thing a lot of them are capable of being good at, there isn't.

>>Surely, this is how we'll stay ahead of all the nations trading and innovating.
China and India are shitholes and will continue to be shitholes no matter how much they trade with other nations. If either of those two countries start not being shitholes all the factory jobs will migrate elsewhere.

I've actually never read that poem so I can miss the point of something I've never read

Obviously I care about my culture more than any other culture. If globalisation brought us thousands of years into the future I would support it. In reality it just means cultural erosian with no real gains. To the Afircans, colonisation was like space-faring aliens coming to their country and teaching them everything they knew.

I don't know, are Europeans happy with their immigrants?

it brought civilization to the savages, while costing europe heavily in building countries from nothing

That isn't the fault of colonialism but politicians making bad decisions

Colonialism didn't have to lead to mass immigration. There wasn't mass immigration until it ended

>You presume that everyone is capable of being a computer programmer, they are not.

It was an example, not a catch-all.

>You presume that even if they were, that they wouldn't be competing with foreign slave labor, they would be.

I didn't presume this. In fact I acknowledge it as a consequence of Globalism. I'm comparing Globalism and Colonialism, and pointing out the hypocrisy and regarding one as good and the other as bad. They're both harmful in ways, and beneficial in other ways.

>You presume that there is something wrong with low or average skill workers wanting to be able to make a decent living at the only thing a lot of them are capable of being good at, there isn't.

I did not presume this you shitfuck. I am a low/average skill worker. I am paid $10 an hour to send office work to Indians and Mexicans. I am capable of empathizing with all people in the class struggle. Both the people I work with and the people I send work to, who are paid way less than I would ever regard as moral for my company's bottom line.

>China and India are shitholes and will continue to be shitholes no matter how much they trade with other nations.
Now THAT is a "presumption." Economies raise their standards of living when they export a lot of goods. China's ideology might prevent it's standard of living from every being quite like the US's, but to pretend that things can't improve JUST CUZ is stupid.

>If either of those two countries start not being shitholes all the factory jobs will migrate elsewhere.

There are other factors at play. Treaties. Natural resources. Governments, militaries. Special interests. Multinational corporations. If China stopped "being a shithole" a lot of other things wouldn't change. China can afford to treat its workers better and to have better safety regulations while at the same time keeping its sense of discipline. The US did that. Just look at how factories treated workers 100 years ago in the US. Things changed for the better.

What are you talking abut, the Belgians were 'armless

>Obviously I care about my culture more than any other culture.

This worked for most of history. But now it will be the undoing of cultures. Cultures that reject globalism will fall behind other cultures that don't. Imagine if your group of friends started using dirty tactics that worked to get ahead in life. If you don't adapt to their dirty tactics you fall behind. It's no longer a question of morality/dignity, but of speed/discipline. Economies that import cheap goods and export labor are going to raise the standards of living in countries that do the opposite. In a couple hundred years things will either level out when most countries resemble each other. There will be no more incentive to export labor when everyone gets paid roughly the same worldwide. The pot is being stirred and the ingredients have yet to blend together. But whether you like it or not the hand will continue stirring the pot. You as an individual/nation/global superpower cannot stop it. It is not a moral question.

>If globalisation brought us thousands of years into the future I would support it. In reality it just means cultural erosian with no real gains. To the Afircans, colonisation was like space-faring aliens coming to their country and teaching them everything they knew.

Yes. That is correct. And an arbitrary consequence of a lot of things beyond anyone's control. So is globalism

Automation is a bigger threat than immigration/outsourcing. The undoing of protectionism will come from within. People are paid big bucks to machinate tasks that previously required humans. Basic Guaranteed Income, social safety nets, high standards of living, and an interconnected world economy is the future. Protectionist measures are like putting a piece of toilet paper in front of a piss stream. The piss stream cuts right through it.

The machine runs the ghost, not vice versa. The willpower of individual entities will not stop globalism.

I do not like globalism, but I acknowledge it.

>idea

Africa was not in the stone age idiot.

no it just created resentment

No most colonies were loss making from an economic perspective and the naive misguided mentality that superior European people had the duty to elevate the brown masses to a higher level eventually degenerated and lead to the open borders disaster of today

>white man's burden

You mean that sarcastic piece that was never meant to be taken seriously and was critical of western imperilism?

Of course, you had spaceships n shit before da white devil stole yo powers

It's poked fun at the people who believed it genuinely. Like .

The uplifting was used as an excuse to justify the absorption of colonies and the shit that happened down there.

Nice hyperbole retard.