Pros and Cons of Colonization

General chat about life in the Land Of Smiles. Discuss expat life, relationship issues and all things generally Thailand and Asia related.
Post Reply
oakdale160
Rock Star
Rock Star
Posts: 3655
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 9:51 pm

Re: Pros and Cons of Colonization

Post by oakdale160 » Sun May 27, 2018 7:51 am

Occupiers or Colonisers--Their motivations are much the same--exploit and plunder. Civilising and helping the local population was done only to serve the colonizers interest.
One of the things that the British did much better than other colonizers was to develop a small local middle-class. These locals finished up fiercely loyal to the Crown and totally opposed to independence. The French, Spanish, Portuguese and in Asia the Japanese never took this step.

User avatar
404cameljockey
Ace
Ace
Posts: 1360
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2016 5:14 am

Re: Pros and Cons of Colonization

Post by 404cameljockey » Sun May 27, 2018 8:22 am

handdrummer wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 11:44 am
Not too many benefits in India, Pakistan, The middle east, Africa. The British took over, made a mess and left it a mess. Ditto the French, Spanish and Portuguese. Most of the European messes have been cleaned up the British messes remain. I often wonder why the Middle Easterners are always mad at the U.S. when it was the British who created the present situation? The U.S. did exacerbate it. The liquid gold is just too tempting to keep one's fingers out of the pot.
That's actually pretty trite and anyway totally inaccurate. The mess always started after the British were requested/made to leave. Africa has always been and will always be a mess without a firm colonial hand on it. Entropy is the normal state of Africa.But the Chinese are stepping in now, they'll own it pretty soon. The Middle East has been at religious war for over 1200 years, the British did not make that happen and in fact stopped it for the period of their occupation. THAT is the basis of Middle Eastern conflict, surely that's obvious. India, ah people love to quote that one. The British were forced (actually by India) to partition quickly and Pakistan was the horrible result. Religion again. Anyway the legal, political and physical advancement that Britain brought to India didn't help it's fast evolution? Where is India now in the world tables? Many other countries also have vast resources, but where are they?

Colonization was in some ways a force for good, in others not. Threads like this on forums tend to go on forever....

PS - the Japanese were 'invited' into Thailand during WWII (obviously at Japan's request; would have been hard for Thailand to refuse, admittedly), because they wanted to attack the British in Burma, and so get to India. Nothing to do with wanting the resources of Thailand.

User avatar
404cameljockey
Ace
Ace
Posts: 1360
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2016 5:14 am

Re: Pros and Cons of Colonization

Post by 404cameljockey » Sun May 27, 2018 8:28 am

oakdale160 wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 7:51 am
Occupiers or Colonisers--Their motivations are much the same--exploit and plunder. Civilising and helping the local population was done only to serve the colonizers interest.
One of the things that the British did much better than other colonizers was to develop a small local middle-class. These locals finished up fiercely loyal to the Crown and totally opposed to independence. The French, Spanish, Portuguese and in Asia the Japanese never took this step.
To ignore the fact that there was also a genuine belief for 200-300 years that the western way of life and Christianity were things which should be spread forcibly across the world as a beneficial force ("it's for your own good"...) is rather poor. I guess that you imagine the Crusades were also only about plunder, or capturing a rich city?

oakdale160
Rock Star
Rock Star
Posts: 3655
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 9:51 pm

Re: Pros and Cons of Colonization

Post by oakdale160 » Sun May 27, 2018 9:03 am

I agree that there was a certain belief that we were doing the locals a favor--Kipling, my favourite poet and the great poet of the British Empire wrote "Take up the white man's burden, with all the speed you may" It was the 'duty' of the British to civilize the savages. Was this sincere or just lip service--I don't know.

User avatar
laphanphon
Professional
Professional
Posts: 366
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 12:15 am
Location: PKK

Re: Pros and Cons of Colonization

Post by laphanphon » Sun May 27, 2018 10:39 am

There's a difference between trading partner help, and forced colonization of the past. Forcing a signed treaty with a 'man of war' parked a the dock is anything but fair trading. Why the 'empires' had been revolted against and thrown out.

Now things such as the 'CommonWealth' are nothing more than trade organizations bargaining for better treaties through combined power.

What the Chinese are doing today is helping nations while helping themselves, nothing forced.
Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness ... Mark Twain

Thank God for Atheists

europtimiste
Guru
Guru
Posts: 827
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 12:19 pm

Re: Pros and Cons of Colonization

Post by europtimiste » Sun May 27, 2018 11:11 am

handdrummer wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 4:07 am
europtimiste wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 6:53 pm
handdrummer wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 4:42 pm
Attention: We all must remember that Europessimist is always right.
Really ? You will soon let us believe that they were not occupier as they were cordially welcomed by the Thai government, knowing that their glorious army cannot fight them,
I'm sorry about your inability to comprehend a simple sentence. For your benefit I'll repeat what I said: The Japanese were occupiers, not colonizers. On the other hand, I'll "let" you believe whatever you wish to believe. And, oh yes, the Japanese, for whatever reason ("glorious army cannot fight them") were cordially welcomed by the Thai govt. However, the Japanese were still occupiers, not colonizers. Please look up the definition of both words. Capish? Katalava? Comprend?
Words game goes on. Military occupation or colonization, the purpose is same.

User avatar
dtaai-maai
Addict
Addict
Posts: 9671
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:00 pm
Location: Hua Hin

Re: Pros and Cons of Colonization

Post by dtaai-maai » 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.

It really is that simple.

Of course, your general attitude on this forum doesn't encourage a high level of patience, sympathy and understanding... :cheers:
Cry ‘God for Harry, England, and St George!’

User avatar
Nereus
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7297
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hua Hin and Bangkok

Re: Pros and Cons of Colonization

Post by Nereus » Sun May 27, 2018 5:32 pm

Wot did the Romans do to youse Poms? :twisted:
May you be in heaven half an hour before the devil know`s you`re dead!

User avatar
STEVE G
Hero
Hero
Posts: 12159
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 3:50 am
Location: HUA HIN/EUROPE

Re: Pros and Cons of Colonization

Post by STEVE G » Sun May 27, 2018 9:07 pm

Nereus wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 5:32 pm
Wot did the Romans do to youse Poms? :twisted:
According to one Roman account, Britain was "The home of men who are complete savages who live a miserable existence because of the cold"!

User avatar
Nereus
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7297
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hua Hin and Bangkok

Re: Pros and Cons of Colonization

Post by Nereus » Sun May 27, 2018 10:20 pm

STEVE G wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 9:07 pm
Nereus wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 5:32 pm
Wot did the Romans do to youse Poms? :twisted:
According to one Roman account, Britain was "The home of men who are complete savages who live a miserable existence because of the cold"!
Hmm, so wots changed then? :rasta:
May you be in heaven half an hour before the devil know`s you`re dead!

oakdale160
Rock Star
Rock Star
Posts: 3655
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 9:51 pm

Re: Pros and Cons of Colonization

Post by oakdale160 » Sun May 27, 2018 10:50 pm

A South African friend of mine says that even at the height of Apartheid one of the problems that SA had was the huge number of people from the recently independent countries to the north, all run by brutal black dictators, who were flooding into SA for a better life. And that if a free vote was taken where the people could select their form of govt, then "please can we go back to being a British Colony " would have been the overwhelming winner.

User avatar
STEVE G
Hero
Hero
Posts: 12159
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 3:50 am
Location: HUA HIN/EUROPE

Re: Pros and Cons of Colonization

Post by STEVE G » Mon May 28, 2018 1:01 am

Nereus wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 10:20 pm
STEVE G wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 9:07 pm
Nereus wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 5:32 pm
Wot did the Romans do to youse Poms? :twisted:
According to one Roman account, Britain was "The home of men who are complete savages who live a miserable existence because of the cold"!
Hmm, so wots changed then? :rasta:
The only way they could colonize Australia was by sending out the people they used to hang.

User avatar
404cameljockey
Ace
Ace
Posts: 1360
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2016 5:14 am

Re: Pros and Cons of Colonization

Post by 404cameljockey » Mon May 28, 2018 7:24 am

STEVE G wrote:
Mon May 28, 2018 1:01 am
Nereus wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 10:20 pm
STEVE G wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 9:07 pm


According to one Roman account, Britain was "The home of men who are complete savages who live a miserable existence because of the cold"!
Hmm, so wots changed then? :rasta:
The only way they could colonize Australia was by sending out the people they used to hang.
Yep it wasn't meant to be a colony, it was an open prison. North America was true colonization. You're right that chainrattlers only exist nowadays because the prison hulks in British rivers were full. Unfortunately we didn't realise what we were inflicting on the world for future generations!

User avatar
404cameljockey
Ace
Ace
Posts: 1360
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2016 5:14 am

Re: Pros and Cons of Colonization

Post by 404cameljockey » Mon May 28, 2018 7:44 am

laphanphon wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 10:39 am
There's a difference between trading partner help, and forced colonization of the past. Forcing a signed treaty with a 'man of war' parked a the dock is anything but fair trading. Why the 'empires' had been revolted against and thrown out.

Now things such as the 'CommonWealth' are nothing more than trade organizations bargaining for better treaties through combined power.

What the Chinese are doing today is helping nations while helping themselves, nothing forced.
Yes they're helping themselves alright. They are tying up African countries by putting them into massive debt that they will never be able to repay.

Trading or loansharking? Hospitals and railways in return for control over your economy for the rest of time.

Kenya president urges rebalance of China-Africa trade:
"China [is] recreating colonial trading patterns by flooding the continent with manufactured goods, extracting raw materials and gobbling up construction contracts".
https://www.ft.com/content/947ea960-38b ... 27b8a20f23

On another matter, one of the main concerns over the huge British Empire was not the treatment of the natives, that was in general not harsh (only when putting down rebellions, that could get savage). It was forcing the idea of 'free trade' on countries, which has actually shaped the economy of the world from then until now.

But think about the fact that it also encourages the free movement of people globally. Was that a good thing?

This is the Chinese on the movement of Chinese around the globe, started by the British and other western powers who forced trade on China (China obviously was not colonized, but it applies to other Empire countries of course):
"This outflow of our population was never sought by us. Western powers, armed with the formidable artillery with which modern science has supplied them, battered down the portals of the empire; and, having done so, insisted upon keeping them open. "
http://theconversation.com/the-commonwe ... -2-0-73707

Colonization and the corresponding increased ambit of those and other local countries' trading boundaries and worldview has resulted in the modern globalised world. Whether it has resulted in good or bad now people argue about, but for hundreds of years it drove a fast track steam train through the world, modernising it, increasing lifespans, improving health and education. Did the world want it? Of course it did. But now we say "shame on Europeans for giving Africa dentistry, they were happy in their huts". :)

oakdale160
Rock Star
Rock Star
Posts: 3655
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 9:51 pm

Re: Pros and Cons of Colonization

Post by oakdale160 » 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

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests