PDA

View Full Version : Colonialism. What do we think of it ?



The Lawspeaker
09-26-2009, 02:36 AM
Colonialism. It has shaped European and World History in both positive and negative ways. Since the American War of Independence we have seen de-colonization. The pioneers of which were, involuntarily, the British who lost the Thirteen Colonies, the French who lost Haiti and the Spanish who lost their colonial empire in South America and later on the Phillippines. From then on it was quiet for a while but after World War II it started all over again with a massive wave of decolonization: first the British in India and the Dutch who got thrown out of the Netherlands Indies- now Indonesia. And on it went during the 1950s right up until the 1970s.

The decolonization process cannot be described in one single word. It was violent in some places with a non-western populace, peaceful in others with a non-western populace, violent with a western populace like in what is now the United States of America (The Thirteen Colonies) or South Africa or non-violent with a western populace.
In some cases the result was a nation that was still closely linked to the former mother country. Like Canada and Australia are to Britain. In other places the former colonial overlords were stamped out and the country indigenounized (like in Indonesia and Africa).

So what to think about those final colonies during the 21th century. Could colonialism perhaps be turned into a cultural and a political bond. Like the Commonwealth of Nations or perhaps be more like the Nederlandse Taalunie (Dutch Language Union) where the Dutch (and Flemish) regulate the use of the Dutch language together with the Netherlands Antilles (still part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands) and Suriname (independent since 1975) - and where South Africa and Indonesia are special partners ?

Or should we turn ourselves away from our former colonies the way they turned away from us ?

Electronic God-Man
09-26-2009, 02:40 AM
Our most recent colonizations....What do I think of them?

Die zweite Völkerwanderung.

The Lawspeaker
09-26-2009, 02:41 AM
Our most recent colonizations....What do I think of it?

Die zweite Völkerwanderung.
Err no. I am not referring to that. ;)
I meant our relations with our former colonies.

Like the Netherlands with South Africa, the Netherlands Antilles, Suriname, Indonesia- and our ties with New York.

Electronic God-Man
09-26-2009, 02:46 AM
Err no. I am not referring to that. ;)
I meant our relations with our former colonies.

Like the Netherlands with South Africa, the Netherlands Antilles, Suriname, Indonesia- and our ties with New York.

Ah, then I guess this is a question for those in Europe. Personally, I don't care what England thinks about us Americans, for example. :)

The Lawspeaker
09-26-2009, 02:48 AM
Ah, then I guess this is a question for those in Europe. Personally, I don't care what England thinks about us Americans, for example. :)
But would an American consider it a good idea to establish close cultural ties with England ?

Jägerstaffel
09-26-2009, 02:49 AM
Hard for the majority of us Americans to relate to England, as well.

The majority of people in the US are German blood, and the rest of the peoples have ties to other countries as well.

I guess think of us as brothers in arms rather than colonies nowadays. :)

Electronic God-Man
09-26-2009, 02:50 AM
But would an American consider it a good idea to establish close cultural ties with England ?

Sure, why not? I would, so long as they don't hold us back in any way. We have our differences, obviously.

Jägerstaffel
09-26-2009, 02:51 AM
But would an American consider it a good idea to establish close cultural ties with England ?

Yes, but not JUST England.

Electronic God-Man
09-26-2009, 02:55 AM
Yes, but not JUST England.

Yes, you're right. But what are you using as criteria for this?

I'd say the British Isles, Germany/Switzerland, and the Netherlands...our main colonizing nations.

Psychonaut
09-26-2009, 02:59 AM
But would an American consider it a good idea to establish close cultural ties with England ?

England is the ancient enemy. They are an enemy so vile and perverse that they impelled us to rebel and forge a nation from beneath the yoke of their oppression! ;)

Seriously though, as far as forming close ties with any nation, George Washington said it (http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/text.html) better than I can:


It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world

The Lawspeaker
09-26-2009, 03:01 AM
Here is my view on the matter. We Dutch obviously had a colonial empire and we should build on the idea of a cultural union like the Francophonie or the Nederlandse Taalunie.

I think that first the Netherlands Antilles (whether they like it or not) should become independent real soon and those Antilleans living here should be returned home. And we should either provide the highly skilled with commercial investments in some universities and businesses there or arrange contracts for them in let's say countries like Brazil.

I think that the Dutch language is worth preserving- here and overseas so the Dutch should maintain the language union and regulate the language in the same way as done now- also preserving Dutch culture overseas. We could also invite South Africa (where large groups of peoples speak Afrikaans- closely related to Dutch) to join that language union. After all- if there would be foreign loanwords entering our tongue they better come from a related language.

When it comes to Indonesia- we were kicked out violently and hence neglected our ties. Now it is time to work on those ties again. I think that the Dutch should make it attractive for Indonesians to learn Dutch by stimulating their economy and spend a lot of time preserving colonial heritage, whether cultural, religious, linguistic or architectural or in the cuisine and start influencing Indonesian (Islamic/ Asian) culture. After all Indonesia is a large Muslim country and if one could improve our ties, preserve Dutch heritage AND weaken Islam then that is too good an opportunity.
Perhaps the Dutch language could make a re-appearance in Indonesian schools and colleges, Dutch political and social ideas could influence the Indonesians for the better and Dutch finance could make the economy more profitable. However- it would be foolish to invest taxpayer money on such an undertaking so it could be better to leave the diplomacy to the government and the investment to cooperations, universities and non-profit organizations.


http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/19233341.jpg

http://www.marisan.nl/reizen/curacao2008/images/1024/12jun_punda.jpg

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_JRPcdbBWwVg/R4wdznNGBdI/AAAAAAAAACA/xeDfMCJCloc/DSCF5702.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Stellenbosch-TW.jpg

It's very clear to see that this all was once "Dutch soil"

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/KeizersgrachtAmsterdamNederland.jpg/800px-KeizersgrachtAmsterdamNederland.jpg

Dutch as a primary language is being used in the Netherlands and Flanders, parts of French Flanders, Suriname (primary language along with for instance Sratong) and the Netherlands Antilles (along with Papiamento and English). The related language Afrikaans is being spoken in South Africa and Namibia.

Electronic God-Man
09-26-2009, 03:02 AM
Seriously though, as far as forming close ties with any nation, George Washington said it (http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/text.html) better than I can:

It's easy to say that, but we obviously need friends in the world and what better countries than those we (used to) share so much with?

Psychonaut
09-26-2009, 03:22 AM
It's easy to say that, but we obviously need friends in the world and what better countries than those we (used to) share so much with?

A friend is one thing, but an ally is another. There is, in my opinion, no other nation worth going to war for. Such allegiances have plagued us with war after unnecessary war.

The Lawspeaker
09-26-2009, 03:25 AM
A friend is one thing, but an ally is another. There is, in my opinion, no other nation worth going to war for. Such allegiances have plagued us with war after unnecessary war.
It doesn't necessarily have to be a military alliance. It could also mean more economic, diplomatic and cultural exchange and cooperation.

Psychonaut
09-26-2009, 03:30 AM
It doesn't necessarily have to be a military alliance. It could also mean more economic, diplomatic and cultural exchange and cooperation.

That sounds fine, and I'd of course, wish that these types of ties were stronger with Canada, England, the Netherlands, Germany, etc. than with any other nations, BUT I'd still like for such "friendships" to be non-binding in nature and explicitly non-military.

Gooding
09-26-2009, 03:39 AM
That sounds fine, and I'd of course, wish that these types of ties were stronger with Canada, England, the Netherlands, Germany, etc. than with any other nations, BUT I'd still like for such "friendships" to be non-binding in nature and explicitly non-military.

I have to say that I wholeheartedly agree with Psychonaut.

Nodens
09-26-2009, 07:01 AM
That sounds fine, and I'd of course, wish that these types of ties were stronger with Canada, England, the Netherlands, Germany, etc. than with any other nations, BUT I'd still like for such "friendships" to be non-binding in nature and explicitly non-military.

And when we become so interdependent that their wars must become our wars?

Electronic God-Man
09-26-2009, 07:05 AM
And when we become so interdependent that their wars must become our wars?

Can you clarify? I know you must understand that Psy was saying that we must avoid all military alliances.

Nodens
09-26-2009, 07:17 AM
Can you clarify? I know you must understand that Psy was saying that we must avoid all military alliances.

Any significant degree of cooperation risks our economic and geopolitical interests aligning so closely that even a non-military alliance becomes a de-facto military alliance.

Psychonaut
09-26-2009, 07:18 AM
And when we become so interdependent that their wars must become our wars?

Have no doubt, I lean very far in the Isolationist camp. But what trading partners we are to have, it would be good for them to be those we have historic ties to.

Fortis in Arduis
09-26-2009, 07:52 AM
The British Empire came into existence because of French competition. Britain had to create colonies to defend British trade. This competition remains.

If the Foreign Office cannot approve, above board, the overseas defence of companies based in the UK, then they will employ mercenaries to operate covertly. This is going on all the time between France and the UK. Surely this is wasteful? I would wager that the British system has more to gain from this competition than does the French, so I blame the British system for this, but in the context of an ailing Europe, with a looming energy crisis and population crisis, I do not see the point of this, but for the benefit of a few plutocrats who enjoy playing soldiers in between playing playing golf and wearing crowns.

Winston Churchill proposed co-operation with France pre-WWII and this might have helped to preserve some of both of our empires, as it might have kept American finance out of the equation, or, knowing Churchill, it would simply have integrated us further.

American finance replaced the Dutch, German, French and British empires.

That is what actually happened. Europe was deliberately screwed by America, the more powerful, better-appointed military-strategic landmass.

I do not like this 'American' empire, but all empires fail and we should plan with this in mind.

The British Empire was enabled by transnational financial networks which came into England after Oliver Cromwell allowed Jews into Britain.

Those Jews were immensely grateful and they came over with William of Orange and created nothing short of a financial revolution.

Previously their 'baby' had been mighty Holland. Look what they did with tiny Britain. They were the cold impartial catalyst for this miraculous expansion.

However, England, followed by other parts of Britain, underwent rationalisation, the effects of which were hardest felt in places where economic and social structures were more co-operative, such as Scotland, and led to a dangerous degree of specialisation in Ireland, which created the conditions for the potato famine.

Colonialism is the extension of that capitalist system.

I believe that capitalist system to be as immoral as I do state socialism, so I am against colonialism and imperialism.

It just boils down to using co-operative economic to subvert the current system and bring it under local ownership and direction, then the elites can do what they want... They are our colonial masters really, they have colonised us without our realising; they must go and I do not care where.

The poll options are wholly inadequate for me because I view colonialism as an economic phenomenon having little to do with nations or cultural issues.

How can the British Empire have been British, when it colonised us?

Liffrea
09-27-2009, 04:15 PM
It’s quite simple, a nation looks to it’s own best interests and no other. Like relations between individual humans the majority of the time it pays to co-operate but occasionally we have to act in our own interests.

I don’t see a “special relationship” with America, I see the world’s latest bully boy trying to enforce it’s creed on any and all (regardless of want) and yester years former bully boy trying to stay in the spot light by hanging onto the coat tails. Britain finds itself in ridiculous situations because it wants to please Washington, yes folks that all 90% of UK foreign policy amounts to how can we please Washington?

USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, all to greater or lesser degrees settled and moulded by the Anglo-Saxon, but they aren’t “transplanted Englishmen” anymore, they are separate nations with their own destinies, that’s the true destiny of any colony, most of which were founded by people trying to get away from the “motherland”. As an Englishman beyond prosaic notions what do any of these countries mean to me? Nothing, let America fight it’s own wars, they don’t Britain’s contribution and we don’t need the hassle, we’re a 2nd rate European power, not a “global player” we’re not really listened to by America, Russia or China, this isn’t our game anymore, we should have the grace to step out and let the big boys play global hegemon, we can’t and we don’t need to.

What’s needed in London is a government that finally let’s go of the past and starts to look towards its own future, preferably before we do something really stupid like throw our lot in with the French and Germans, might as well sign a pact with Satan.

safinator
02-25-2012, 05:05 PM
It's a massive question to ask in terms of subjunctive history. Basically you're not only asking what trajectory the undeveloped world would have taken in the absence of European power but also how the developed world would have shaped up with a fundamentally different balance of power in Europe...

In terms of European history I'd suggest that the continent benefited from a more powerful Britain, if only because it allowed no single power to become dominant until the rise of Germany, and even then Britain provided the balance that stave off German victory in WW1.

The third world is not as simple to call. We simply can't know if these nations would have eventually got on with western style trade & industry - without outside influence, or if they would have languished as near (or wholly) subsistence economies; the influence of European intervention is both an example & a humiliating motivator. The fate of these nations is further confused as their post-colonial fates were entwined in the wars of the 20thC, not least the Cold War in the immediate post-colonial era which did a great deal to undermine the institutions & development of Afriacan & SEA nations.

Wulfhere
02-25-2012, 05:15 PM
The British retain excellent relations with their former colonies, even to the extent that our monarch remains the head of state of all of them except one.

I'm referring to the actual colonies, that were colonised by British people. Not the other dependent territories which, although often classed as colonies, had little or no British colonisation.

curupira
02-27-2012, 01:26 PM
Homo homini lupus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_homini_lupus

Joe McCarthy
02-27-2012, 01:40 PM
Speaking historically the West was built on colonialism, plain and simple. Western ascendancy depended on it and had the West not done it someone else might have. Ultimately though it sowed the seeds of its own destruction as too much European rivalry for territory led to too much major warfare, ultimately undoing Europe's global position.

In this respect the US has been fortunate and wise not to indulge in too much colonial adventurism.

Colonialism has a future though. This time it probably will be China, in Africa, and if it is the West it'll be the US acting to block them.

Occident
02-27-2012, 01:44 PM
Colonialism has a future though. This time it probably will be China, in Africa, and if it is the West it'll be the US acting to block them.

The China is welcome to Africa, as long as we annex the Moon.

European Loyalist
02-27-2012, 08:14 PM
Speaking historically the West was built on colonialism, plain and simple. Western ascendancy depended on it and had the West not done it someone else might have. Ultimately though it sowed the seeds of its own destruction as too much European rivalry for territory led to too much major warfare, ultimately undoing Europe's global position.

In this respect the US has been fortunate and wise not to indulge in too much colonial adventurism.

Colonialism has a future though. This time it probably will be China, in Africa, and if it is the West it'll be the US acting to block them.

I can see China looking to move it's sphere of influence to include far eastern Europe and central Asia (Russia, Belarus, the stans)

Albion
02-27-2012, 10:09 PM
You've seen my replies at Heorot, so I'll just go through the basics here:


Don't bother with African or Asian colonies apart from trade and creating export markets
Abolish the Commonwealth and replace it with an Anglosphere Organisation
Build ties between the British-settled colonies of Australia, NZ and Canada as well as America
Make better trade arrangements between Anglosphere countries
Make migration rules between Anglosphere countries better
Work as a bloc on international issue in which we have a common goal
With the African former colonies we could invest in their infrastructure (again...), but this time not allow them to nationalise it and ruin it. If they nationalise it then trade with us would be stopped. We'd put in place proper water and sanitation systems, irrigation where needed, upgrade the powerlines and put in basic roads and services.
In Africa we'd also reorganise their agriculture so that they actually grew crops suited to the climate and did so in a suitable manner. By the time we'd finish there'd be surpluses instead of deficits.
Get the African former colonies favouring resource exports to us instead of China


Africa from the point of view of an infrastructure-nut like myself is actually quite interesting because it's a blank slate. Pretty much everything needs building, so it gives you a lot to think about.

Albion
02-27-2012, 10:14 PM
The Netherlands already has heavy foreign investment in the US. As for restoring dialects and what not, I'd need to see the specifics. In general I dislike any move toward bilingualism as it's a source of disunity. It's one reason I hate Mexicans, in fact.

Agreed. I've long held that view myself which is why I'm not excited about the idea of reviving the Cumbric language in NW England (its been dead 800 years for a start and we're not purely Celtic any more) nor do I support Wallonia in the Greater Netherlands.
I also find the concept of Switzerland weird because of it, especially since they are basically the same peoples as in the surrounding states. There's no need for Switzerland to even exist any more. Continentals say because it is old that that's a reason for preserving it, I beg to differ.

Joe McCarthy
02-28-2012, 05:33 AM
I can see China looking to move it's sphere of influence to include far eastern Europe and central Asia (Russia, Belarus, the stans)

China is already in bed with Lukashenko in Belarus much like they were with Milosevic. They're also buying up land in Kazakhstan. This is just another reason to keep NATO solvent. If the Europeans aren't in our sphere of influence they'll likely end up in China's, and the very thought of that horrifies me. It's also a reason to win in Afghanistan.

SwordoftheVistula
02-28-2012, 05:59 AM
There's no need for Switzerland to even exist any more.

Now with the EU, there's even more of a need for Switzerland to exist, as a refuge from the EU.


China...a reason to win in Afghanistan.

So far, 'winning' in Afghanistan has meant protecting all the Chinese companies which we enabled to buy up all the mineral rights.

Gaztelu
02-28-2012, 06:14 AM
If the Europeans aren't in our sphere of influence they'll likely end up in China's, and the very thought of that horrifies me.

You worry too much Joe.

Relax. :cool:

Gaztelu
02-28-2012, 06:16 AM
I also find the concept of Switzerland weird because of it, especially since they are basically the same peoples as in the surrounding states. There's no need for Switzerland to even exist any more. Continentals say because it is old that that's a reason for preserving it, I beg to differ.

:rolleyes2:

Tell that to someone in Geneva, Zurich, or Lugano and see what kind of response you'll receive.

And believe me, it will be humorous to them.

Albion
02-28-2012, 10:27 AM
:rolleyes2:

Tell that to someone in Geneva, Zurich, or Lugano and see what kind of response you'll receive.

And believe me, it will be humorous to them.

I know what response I'd receive. Can anyone really explain though why exactly a country based on regional strains of the French, German and Italian ethnicities actually still exists? The Romansh I include with Italians personally.

The Swiss are just like the Montenegrins or Macedonians, only an older country - a non-existent ethnicity which has been created by political division.

German-speaking Switzerland ~ Voralberg (Austria), Eastern Elsaß (occupied by France), Baden-Württemberg (Germany).

Swiss French ~ French Comte, Rhone Alpes.

Italian-speaking Switzerland (and Romansh) ~ Northern Piemont, Northern Lombardy.


Gadhafi actually had the right idea, even if his motivations for it weren't exactly great.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Switzerland_Gaddafi_Map-English.png

Joe McCarthy
02-28-2012, 05:06 PM
So far, 'winning' in Afghanistan has meant protecting all the Chinese companies which we enabled to buy up all the mineral rights.

And your 'solution' is to surrender entirely, thus paving the way for China to move in wholesale.

Loddfafner
02-28-2012, 05:20 PM
I moved the digression about the Dutch in America here (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=743359).

Supreme American
02-28-2012, 05:20 PM
The China is welcome to Africa, as long as we annex the Moon.

They shouldn't get either.

The Lawspeaker
02-28-2012, 05:35 PM
:rolleyes2:

Tell that to someone in Geneva, Zurich, or Lugano and see what kind of response you'll receive.

And believe me, it will be humorous to them.
He would probably get his gob smacked.. :cool:

Grumpy Cat
02-28-2012, 05:36 PM
Europeans expand = colonialism. Negative. Focuses on negatives.

Middle Easterners expand = great glorious empire spreading high culture. Positive. Focuses on positives.

China expands to Africa = Economic opportunities (isn't that why Europeans went there?). Positive. Focuses on positives.

All of them had positive AND negative aspects.

Double standard city.

Gaztelu
02-28-2012, 07:24 PM
I know what response I'd receive. Can anyone really explain though why exactly a country based on regional strains of the French, German and Italian ethnicities actually still exists?

It is simply because the Swiss, whether they are Francophones, Alemannics, or Italians, are proud citizens of the Swiss Confederation and have no interest in becoming French, German, or Italian.

Joe McCarthy
02-28-2012, 07:37 PM
The Swiss nation, like others, was forged in war. From the formative conflicts with the Habsburgs in the 14th century, to the Swabian War in 1499, to the lore around William Tell... such things are not cast aside so easily.

Gaztelu
02-28-2012, 07:37 PM
The Swiss nation, like others, was forged in war. From the formative conflicts with the Habsburgs in the 14th century, to the Swabian War in 1499, to the lore around William Tell... such things are not cast aside so easily.

Exactly.

European Loyalist
02-28-2012, 07:39 PM
It is simply because the Swiss, whether they are Francophones, Alemannics, or Italians, are proud citizens of the Swiss Confederation and have no interest in becoming French, German, or Italian.

But they are not a bilingual or trilingual nation, they are a trilingual country/state. They each have their separate regions languages and cultures. I had a Swiss German friend who made this perfectly clear to me. The concept of multiculturalism as we have in Canada was completely foreign to him (multiple cultures and languages within one supposed "nation").

Albion
02-28-2012, 09:04 PM
It is simply because the Swiss, whether they are Francophones, Alemannics, or Italians, are proud citizens of the Swiss Confederation and have no interest in becoming French, German, or Italian.

I know they have no interest in it, but it doesn't mean I agree with them. Theirs is still a nation-less state.

Albion
02-28-2012, 09:33 PM
He would probably get his gob smacked.. :cool:

Yeah, the truth hurts... even if it is me.

The Swiss when I arrive...

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lm3xpmX0VD1qjvgyzo1_r3_400.gif



Or when you start banging on about the Greater Netherlands:

The Walloons*:
http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/9/27/128985633075679704.jpg
(How many of them think they're Dutch anyway?)

Indonesians...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/Bung_Tomo.jpg/130px-Bung_Tomo.jpg
"Get Out Civis!"

Surinamese....
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cIRv7MZIAsc/Tzl0ljTu3bI/AAAAAAAAAUY/9rFxeqIsVcA/s1600/indiana-jones-angry-natives.jpeg


You argue that the Walloons are Dutch who forgot when they speak a different language. I argue that the Swiss are French, Italians and Germans who are just lying. ;) No double standards please, we must be as coherent as possible lest we risk becoming hypocrites.

If we avoided telling people things they don't want to hear then just what would we discuss?

The Lawspeaker
02-28-2012, 09:58 PM
Yeah, the truth hurts... even if it is me.

The Swiss when I arrive...

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lm3xpmX0VD1qjvgyzo1_r3_400.gif



Or when you start banging on about the Greater Netherlands:

The Walloons*:
http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/9/27/128985633075679704.jpg
(How many of them think they're Dutch anyway?)

Indonesians...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/Bung_Tomo.jpg/130px-Bung_Tomo.jpg
"Get Out Civis!"

Surinamese....
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cIRv7MZIAsc/Tzl0ljTu3bI/AAAAAAAAAUY/9rFxeqIsVcA/s1600/indiana-jones-angry-natives.jpeg


You argue that the Walloons are Dutch who forgot when they speak a different language. I argue that the Swiss are French, Italians and Germans who are just lying. ;) No double standards please, we must be as coherent as possible lest we risk becoming hypocrites.

If we avoided telling people things they don't want to hear then just what would we discuss?

The thing is that the Northern Netherlands and the Southern Netherlands have historically be one single nation. Not so for Switzerland and Germany. Or Switzerland and France. Switzerland and Italy.

Damião de Góis
02-28-2012, 10:07 PM
It's kind of amazing that a tiny country with little population like ours to have expand like we did, but i don't approve of slavery and that was very present in our empire unfortunately... but i guess it was a normal phenomenon back then and not exclusive to us.

Our ties are perhaps bigger with Brazil than Africa or other places like Macau or East Timor. A bigger economic relationship with our former colonies would only be beneficial to us.

Albion
02-28-2012, 10:09 PM
The thing is that the Northern Netherlands and the Southern Netherlands have historically be one single nation. Not so for Switzerland and Germany. Or Switzerland and France. Switzerland and Italy.

I don't think it is a good idea to have multi-ethnic states. The Walloons still aren't Dutch whether they've been with you for a long time or not.
The Welsh have been with England for over 500 years and yet they're no Englishmen. The Cornish even longer, although they've largely merged with the rest of the SW English population.

The Lawspeaker
02-28-2012, 11:57 PM
I don't think it is a good idea to have multi-ethnic states. The Walloons still aren't Dutch whether they've been with you for a long time or not.
The Welsh have been with England for over 500 years and yet they're no Englishmen. The Cornish even longer, although they've largely merged with the rest of the SW English population.
But they are Netherlandic. A Diets people like the Flemish, the Low Saxons, the Dutch of the West, the Limburgics and the Frisians.

Supreme American
02-28-2012, 11:59 PM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cIRv7MZIAsc/Tzl0ljTu3bI/AAAAAAAAAUY/9rFxeqIsVcA/s1600/indiana-jones-angry-natives.jpeg

Looks like a liberal's date night out turned bad.

Multiculturalism is a bitch.

The Lawspeaker
02-29-2012, 12:00 AM
Looks like a liberal's date night out turned bad.

Multiculturalism is a bitch.
"Yawnie yawnie yawn." Go make some white children already.

Hevneren
02-29-2012, 10:34 PM
I oppose colonialism to the extent that it pushes out native populations, destroys native cultures and diversity, wastes resources at home and inevitably leads to immigration from the colonies and to the colonising powers (see Britain and France).

Norway was at the receiving end of Danish colonialism for over 400 years and Swedish colonialism for 91 years. Even in between European nations, there's a destruction of culture and language as a result, and in the case of Norway we saw people starving because our Danish colonial masters were collecting taxes from our peasantry.

Colonialism is detrimental to diversity. It's a gateway to multiculturalism.

Joe McCarthy
02-29-2012, 11:35 PM
I oppose colonialism to the extent that it pushes out native populations, destroys native cultures and diversity, wastes resources at home and inevitably leads to immigration from the colonies and to the colonising powers (see Britain and France).

Norway was at the receiving end of Danish colonialism for over 400 years and Swedish colonialism for 91 years. Even in between European nations, there's a destruction of culture and language as a result, and in the case of Norway we saw people starving because our Danish colonial masters were collecting taxes from our peasantry.

Colonialism is detrimental to diversity. It's a gateway to multiculturalism.

Yeah, agreed. Those English colonial projects in North America worked out horribly. I'm still pissed off my French ancestors had to undergo Romanization too. :rolleyes:

Many of the colonies, such as British India, were unquestionably beneficial from a financial standpoint.

Den Pobedy
03-17-2012, 07:44 PM
I've always thought that when we talk about colonial countries that there are really two type's.There are what I consider "settler colonies",where quite a few of the home countries people settled.And where the language and much of the homelands culture took root.Basically,the US,Canada,Australia,NZ,Latin America,and to some extent South Africa.While the other areas.Even though they were called colonies,were really more just controlled or militarily occupied territories.

The 5 main colonial powers Spain,Portugal,Britain,France and the Netherlands.All had some versions of settler colonies,but France and the Netherlands weren't able to live up to their potential in that regard.In France's case during the prime period,1500-1800,they were divided among themselves and so Euro-centric.That except for half-hearted try's in Canada,and even worse in Louisiana.They weren't able to make a real impact in settlement.While the Netherlands,probably,wasthe greatest loser in that regard.Even though a small country,they,at times had an overpopulation problem,and had settlers available to them from the Southern Netherlands and more importantly Germany for colonial settlement.They spread themselves too thin,with settlements in North America and in Brazil,that were doomed to fail.The British were too strong to challenge effectively in North America.And the Portuguese in Brazil were too many and more experienced in the tropics to take on.Unless you truly were willing to make a great effort.Had they not wasted people and money in those areas,they had other areas that they could have built great settler colonies in.Colonies,that might have lasted. Australia was available to them,without any other countries around,for at least a century,to challenge them for control.But the easiest and most beneficial area was South Africa.They were already settled to a small degree there,and had they put the people they wasted in North America and Brazil,into that colony,they probably would have discovered the gold and diamonds in the 1600's,that were discovered 2 centuries later.And as happened in Brazil when the Portuguese discovered Gold and diamonds.There would have been a flood of European immigrants to South Africa,cementing Netherlands population throughout the land.

The Spanish,Portuguese,and British have had the best results in their settler colonies.In the British ones,all have European descended majorities.But even in the Iberian settler colonies.The ones that aren't in the majority of European descent,are culturally European.And European descended people make up most of the ruling classes.

I could see a Iberian Economic Union between their ex-colonies that would benefit both parties.While I can't understand how the British have not done more with their Commonwealth organization,economically.An economic union there would be one of the largest bloc's on earth,maybe the largest.The French seem to make the biggest effort to keep connected with their late Empire.And the Netherlands seemingly the least effort.

Hevneren
03-17-2012, 08:47 PM
Yeah, agreed. Those English colonial projects in North America worked out horribly. I'm still pissed off my French ancestors had to undergo Romanization too. :rolleyes:

Many of the colonies, such as British India, were unquestionably beneficial from a financial standpoint.

Yes, and look what happened in North America. The Native Americans were pushed to near extinction due to an invasion of alien peoples (a lesson to be learned for Europe's natives), and with time the drive for mercantile enterprise and old fashioned greed meant slavery and millions of black people were dragged over to the New World. See where you are today with all those descendants of the first African slaves, and indeed as a nation of immigrants.

European Loyalist
03-17-2012, 08:53 PM
Yes, and look what happened in North America. The Native Americans were pushed to near extinction due to an invasion of alien peoples (a lesson to be learned for Europe's natives), and with time the drive for mercantile enterprise and old fashioned greed meant slavery and millions of black people dragged over to the New World. See where you are today with all those descendants of the first African slaves, and indeed as a nation of immigrants.

No doubt there were many mistakes along the way, but the general point is that North America became thriving economic and academic societies under British colonization. So much so that one became the global superpower hegemon and both of us are among the richest and most innovative countries on earth.

mihaitzateo
03-18-2012, 12:08 AM
I oppose colonialism to the extent that it pushes out native populations, destroys native cultures and diversity, wastes resources at home and inevitably leads to immigration from the colonies and to the colonising powers (see Britain and France).



Colonialism is detrimental to diversity. It's a gateway to multiculturalism.

Well said.


Norway was at the receiving end of Danish colonialism for over 400 years and Swedish colonialism for 91 years. Even in between European nations, there's a destruction of culture and language as a result, and in the case of Norway we saw people starving because our Danish colonial masters were collecting taxes from our peasantry.

Never knew that about Norway.

Albion
03-19-2012, 09:20 AM
I could see a Iberian Economic Union between their ex-colonies that would benefit both parties.While I can't understand how the British have not done more with their Commonwealth organization,economically.An economic union there would be one of the largest bloc's on earth,maybe the largest.The French seem to make the biggest effort to keep connected with their late Empire.And the Netherlands seemingly the least effort.

The Commonwealth wa originally intended to be a collection of the former colonies which shared trade and political ties.
As it turned out, once Britain left most of the colonies they soon failed without our rule. Australia, Canada and NZ were the only ones which really did great but Europe became more important economically and politically whilst the rest distanced themselves from Britain or performed poorly.

Canada, Australia, NZ and Britain all have ties, but not as strong as I'd like to see really.
The Commonwealth should be scrapped and replaced with a organisation for the British-settled colonies (Canada, Australia, NZ) plus America, Britain and Ireland. It could be a defence and trade agreement to start with.

European Loyalist
03-19-2012, 07:57 PM
The Commonwealth wa originally intended to be a collection of the former colonies which shared trade and political ties.
As it turned out, once Britain left most of the colonies they soon failed without our rule. Australia, Canada and NZ were the only ones which really did great but Europe became more important economically and politically whilst the rest distanced themselves from Britain or performed poorly.

Canada, Australia, NZ and Britain all have ties, but not as strong as I'd like to see really.
The Commonwealth should be scrapped and replaced with a organisation for the British-settled colonies (Canada, Australia, NZ) plus America, Britain and Ireland. It could be a defence and trade agreement to start with.

Actually the commonwealth was started when we were still dominions of the UK. And it wasn't until 1982 that Canada became fully politically independent (the last cutting of colonial ties). We were still British subjects until 1949 and still had GSTQ as our national anthem until 1980. People often mistake 1867 as Canada's independence but the truth is that it was a gradual process that took over a century past then.

Den Pobedy
03-20-2012, 03:27 AM
I think the Commonwealth,if restructured could be a very successful economic power.But I also see a possibility for an economic union of just the UK and the settler countries.But not including the US.To include the US would take the focus off the UK as the main pardner.And the economic power and population of the US would end up totally dominating the union.Plus,the world-wide influence of the US would draw the union into the problems that the US faces in the world.

Supreme American
03-22-2012, 05:27 PM
I think the Commonwealth,if restructured could be a very successful economic power.But I also see a possibility for an economic union of just the UK and the settler countries.But not including the US.To include the US would take the focus off the UK as the main pardner.And the economic power and population of the US would end up totally dominating the union.Plus,the world-wide influence of the US would draw the union into the problems that the US faces in the world.

Greed is going to render this an impossibility. Economic unions are necessarily going to spread to include as much of the planet as possible.

Albion
03-22-2012, 05:41 PM
Greed is going to render this an impossibility. Economic unions are necessarily going to spread to include as much of the planet as possible.

Yeah, and there's enough deregulation and excessive privatisation as it is. We need to be taking lessons from the Germans, not digging a deeper grave with the Americans.
We can also learn from German mistakes, like why it is bad to pour money into countries which can never pay it back.

Hess
03-22-2012, 05:46 PM
Fun Fact- Norway and Finland are the only two European Countries that had the resources to engage in Colonialism but chose not to.

Albion
03-22-2012, 05:55 PM
Fun Fact- Norway and Finland are the only two European Countries that had the resources to engage in Colonialism but chose not to.

My arse. Norway didn't need to go overseas, it just expanded into the lands of the Sami - same with Finland and Sweden.
"Lappland" was like their version of Siberia or Canada and they expanded there in a similar way to how Russia expanded eastwards. First it was gradual and then it was large attempts.

Norway tried to claim the east side of Greenland but lost it in favour of Norway and took Jan Mayen Island as a consolation prize instead. It then won control over the Svalbard Islands, part of Antarctica and Bouvet Island when the UK and others supported its claims.

Norway and Finland didn't expand overseas as much as other powers for a few reasons, namely because they didn't need to, couldn't challenge the other powers and because they didn't have the funds or will to do so.

As we can see with Russia, it is better to annex a bigger backyard than to grab colonies scattered around the world.

Hess
03-22-2012, 06:06 PM
My arse. Norway didn't need to go overseas, it just expanded into the lands of the Sami - same with Finland and Sweden.
"Lappland" was like their version of Siberia or Canada and they expanded there in a similar way to how Russia expanded eastwards. First it was gradual and then it was large attempts.

Norway tried to claim the east side of Greenland but lost it in favour of Norway and took Jan Mayen Island as a consolation prize instead. It then won control over the Svalbard Islands, part of Antarctica and Bouvet Island when the UK and others supported its claims.

Norway and Finland didn't expand overseas as much as other powers for a few reasons, namely because they didn't need to, couldn't challenge the other powers and because they didn't have the funds or will to do so.

As we can see with Russia, it is better to annex a bigger backyard than to grab colonies scattered around the world.

Agreed, but Norway expanding into Sami territory technically doesn't count as Colonialism in the sense that the word is used in history textbooks.

Hevneren
03-22-2012, 06:38 PM
My arse. Norway didn't need to go overseas, it just expanded into the lands of the Sami - same with Finland and Sweden.
"Lappland" was like their version of Siberia or Canada and they expanded there in a similar way to how Russia expanded eastwards. First it was gradual and then it was large attempts.

Norway tried to claim the east side of Greenland but lost it in favour of Norway and took Jan Mayen Island as a consolation prize instead. It then won control over the Svalbard Islands, part of Antarctica and Bouvet Island when the UK and others supported its claims.

Norway and Finland didn't expand overseas as much as other powers for a few reasons, namely because they didn't need to, couldn't challenge the other powers and because they didn't have the funds or will to do so.

As we can see with Russia, it is better to annex a bigger backyard than to grab colonies scattered around the world.

Did you mean that Norway lost in favour of Denmark when it came to Greenland? After over 500 years of being colonised ourselves, we were forced to give up a lot of territory, including Greenland, Iceland and the Faeroese islands. Our fate wasn't a fate shared by many other European nations, except for maybe Ireland, the Baltic states and Finland.

Albion
03-22-2012, 08:35 PM
Did you mean that Norway lost in favour of Denmark when it came to Greenland?

Yes, that's what I said.

Bobby Martnen
11-15-2017, 08:16 AM
Colonialism was one of the best things that ever happened to the world. It's a shame that it's over.