I have the right to express my opinion alike all others and my general attitude id not worse than many others.dtaai-maai wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 5:08 pm Europtimiste, I'm sure everyone understands exactly what you mean, but the simple fact is that you're wrong. You can't use the fact that English isn't your native language, as the words and their meanings are virtually identical in French.
This is not a matter of words games: occupation is not identical to colonisation. The former may become the latter in time, but it needs an awful lot longer than 2 or 3 years. The purpose is not necessarily the same either; the only reason the Japanese occupied Thailand was to gain access to other Asian countries. Had they won the war, their occupation might well have evolved into colonisation, but they didn't.
We are getting closer, yes if not identical as I said purpose is same. French occupation in Algeria started at 1830 and was colonized at 1834.
It really is that simple.
Of course, your general attitude on this forum doesn't encourage a high level of patience, sympathy and understanding...
Pros and Cons of Colonization
-
- Banned
- Posts: 1395
- Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 12:19 pm
Re: Pros and Cons of Colonization
- 404cameljockey
- Ace
- Posts: 1842
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2016 5:14 am
Re: Pros and Cons of Colonization
I guess you could say that the USA's founding father roots are also now not of any consequence then? It doesn't still shape the feelings and aspirations of a large part of the country? I can't be the judge, just asking the question.oakdale160 wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 8:12 am Perhaps an Aussie could comment on Oz and its convict past. I believe that it is now thought that the importance of its convict influence has been overstated. At the time that the last convict ship arrived in Aus the population was about a million. The total number of convicts imported was 168,000
I'm not a digger (Australian) but can assure you that they are proud of their lawless roots. Ned Kelly is their national hero (I prefer Sir Les Patterson myself).
Brits call them diggers, convicts, chainrattlers and so on, it's harmless fun. They call us all manner of things and often not in fun!
-
- Rock Star
- Posts: 4657
- Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 9:51 pm
Re: Pros and Cons of Colonization
There is a wonderful book--The Fatal Shore by Robert Hughes--An account of the whole transportation day. It is hard to read the cruelties are horrific. He makes some conclusions about modern Aus attitudes--their refusal to respect their "superiors" their love of slang, an alternative language to fool the guards.
Hughes went on to be the art and culture Editor for TIME, imagine an Aus as the authority of art and culture. Good on ya, mate.
Hughes went on to be the art and culture Editor for TIME, imagine an Aus as the authority of art and culture. Good on ya, mate.
- 404cameljockey
- Ace
- Posts: 1842
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2016 5:14 am
Re: Pros and Cons of Colonization
Haha. Well, they do have quite a nice opera house.
Treatment of wrongdoers was brutal in all countries. Better in Britain than say in Spain though. Anywhere though you'd get hanging for stealing an apple. Or years sitting in a rat infested prison hulk in the River Thames or Portsmouth. Transportation would have been an option worth considering.
"Crimmins also writes of prisoners who obtained their release by volunteering to serve in the navy, and who found conditions so bad they petitioned to be returned to the hulks!"
https://judeknightauthor.com/2017/03/25 ... son-hulks/
Treatment of wrongdoers was brutal in all countries. Better in Britain than say in Spain though. Anywhere though you'd get hanging for stealing an apple. Or years sitting in a rat infested prison hulk in the River Thames or Portsmouth. Transportation would have been an option worth considering.
"Crimmins also writes of prisoners who obtained their release by volunteering to serve in the navy, and who found conditions so bad they petitioned to be returned to the hulks!"
https://judeknightauthor.com/2017/03/25 ... son-hulks/
- StevePIraq
- Rock Star
- Posts: 3043
- Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 1:21 pm
- Location: Ting Tong Land
Re: Pros and Cons of Colonization
When I lived in Oz I used love having a dig at them when they lost at rugby or cricket, one thing for sure is that Aussies are not good losers.404cameljockey wrote: ↑Tue May 29, 2018 9:58 amI guess you could say that the USA's founding father roots are also now not of any consequence then? It doesn't still shape the feelings and aspirations of a large part of the country? I can't be the judge, just asking the question.oakdale160 wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 8:12 am Perhaps an Aussie could comment on Oz and its convict past. I believe that it is now thought that the importance of its convict influence has been overstated. At the time that the last convict ship arrived in Aus the population was about a million. The total number of convicts imported was 168,000
I'm not a digger (Australian) but can assure you that they are proud of their lawless roots. Ned Kelly is their national hero (I prefer Sir Les Patterson myself).
Brits call them diggers, convicts, chainrattlers and so on, it's harmless fun. They call us all manner of things and often not in fun!
"Live everyday as if it were your last because someday you're going to be right." Muhammad Ali
-
- Addict
- Posts: 5389
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:58 am
Re: Pros and Cons of Colonization
No one likes to lose. Does anyone love a good loser? What's the virtue in being a good loser? Most of the time the winner rubs the losers nose in it and the loser is supposed to be a good loser? I think not.
Re: Pros and Cons of Colonization
Playing all y'all want won't change that you don't know the difference between colonization and a colonic.europtimiste wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 1:52 pmLet's go, we can indefinitely play with the words. You love that on this forum.......Dannie Boy wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 12:55 pmso you agree that Thailand wasn’t colonizedeuroptimiste wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 12:30 pm
A colonization starts wit military occupation. Japanese lost and had no time to colonize.
- Bamboo Grove
- Moderator
- Posts: 5291
- Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 12:59 pm
- Location: Macau, China
Re: Pros and Cons of Colonization
Homer, I don't even understand what you want to say.
Back in Bamboo Grove
http://bamboogrovestories.blogspot.com/
http://bamboogrovestories.blogspot.com/
Re: Pros and Cons of Colonization
Aussies didn't wait until the last convict ship arrived to began creating a culture. What was the convict VS non-convict population numbers after the First Fleet arrived? That's who began creating Australia and its culture.oakdale160 wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 8:12 amAt the time that the last convict ship arrived in Aus the population was about a million. The total number of convicts imported was 168,000
- Bamboo Grove
- Moderator
- Posts: 5291
- Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 12:59 pm
- Location: Macau, China
Re: Pros and Cons of Colonization
I was thinking about this. I've no idea what you want to say. Sorry.Playing all y'all want won't change that you don't know the difference between colonization and a colonic.
Back in Bamboo Grove
http://bamboogrovestories.blogspot.com/
http://bamboogrovestories.blogspot.com/
Re: Pros and Cons of Colonization
Colonic irrigation???...lol
I think he was trying to say 'difference between colonisation and occupied land, as France was among others.
It was almost 10pm!!
I think he was trying to say 'difference between colonisation and occupied land, as France was among others.
It was almost 10pm!!
-
- Rock Star
- Posts: 4657
- Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 9:51 pm
Re: Pros and Cons of Colonization
British colonization was often privatized. India, for instance, was "colonized" by the East India Company. It was given the"franchise" to exploit India. It had its own army but the object was not military or an attempt to civilize, it was ALL business. It established transportation, a legal system, some schools and hospitals but its motivation was always the bottom line.
- 404cameljockey
- Ace
- Posts: 1842
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2016 5:14 am
Re: Pros and Cons of Colonization
You are talking about the early days, of course, when France and England were at war in India over trade; the Karnatic Wars in the mid-18th century (The Dutch had already been limited to Indonesia). The French were kicked out (apart from being allowed trading posts), the British remained. All three sets of forces had trading charters from their governments, and they were not there to govern India, just to trade with it. As the Mughal Empire grew weaker, so the British had the cnace to establish a stronger fighting force there, in agreement with local rulers in each state (either fight us or allow us to garrison a small force; no choice at all really).oakdale160 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:39 am British colonization was often privatized. India, for instance, was "colonized" by the East India Company. It was given the"franchise" to exploit India. It had its own army but the object was not military or an attempt to civilize, it was ALL business. It established transportation, a legal system, some schools and hospitals but its motivation was always the bottom line.
By the 19th century, the British network of alliances with local rulers to facilitate British assets in India (particularly the trades of the East India Company; tea to Europe and opium to China) had led to the EIC acquiring land directly under ‘Company Rule’ in India with the assent of the British Crown; this state of affairs ended in 1858 when the Crown assumed control of British India after the Sepoy Mutiny. It was in the 19th century that the British also introduced the Doctrine of Lapse among others, taking over and asserting influence over various princely states, either taking them over entirely or subjugating them as protectorates or client states to the British; eventually over almost the entirety of the Indian subcontinent, thus establishing the British Raj (Empire) in India.
Also you are ignoring the 'civilising missions' of many missionaries, particularly people like Willliam Carey. These people worked often under the disapproval of the EIC.But luckily for the world India has largely ignored monotheism, of all descriptions.
- migrant
- Addict
- Posts: 5866
- Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 6:15 am
- Location: California is now in the past hello Thailand!!
Re: Pros and Cons of Colonization
I believe he was being sarcastic saying euro didn't know shit from shinola (does that translate across the pond)?Bamboo Grove wrote: ↑Sat Jun 02, 2018 10:39 pmI was thinking about this. I've no idea what you want to say. Sorry.Playing all y'all want won't change that you don't know the difference between colonization and a colonic.
The proper function of man is to live, not to exist. I shall not waste my days in trying to prolong them. I shall use my time.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 787
- Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 12:15 am
Re: Pros and Cons of Colonization
In reality, there really isn't an 'pros' for colonization, unless you are the invading force.
col·o·ni·za·tion
noun
the action or process of settling among and establishing control over the indigenous people of an area.
verb
"colonization"
the action of appropriating a place or domain for one's own use.