But that's the point isn't it colonization whereas what you and the article are talking about is mainly Imperialism and like the Romans left bugger all that wasn't pretty much already there when they left, apart from the resources mind.Seleucus wrote:As you like. The question in the middle of the last page was how did the English progress from barbarism to the apex of civilization? It was through successive waves of colonization originating in the Near East and Mediterranean.
How should society be organised, if at all?
I do not see how you got that from what I wrote.
I'm saying that Britain exploited India by running the economy in such a way that it benefited Britain, not India. When that ceased to be possible they withdrew.
It depends what you count as 'colonisation'. At one end it can be just a change in the governing class, barely noticed by the ordinary person. At another it can be genocide.
And is all colonization supposed to be beneficial? People certainly did not think so at the time. After the Romans withdrew, under the next wave of invaders British society went backwards. People lived amongst the ruins of buildings that they were no longer capable of constructing. And what about the Mongol invasion of China or the Tartar domination of Russia? It would be hard to argue these represented progress.
And whose civilisation? Rome was certainly civilised in the sense of having specialised industries, cities, an efficient army and so on - but if your role in that society was as a slave you might have prefered less civilisation and more personal freedom. It is doubtful if any 'uncivilized' people have ever became 'civilized' voluntarily.
So we need some clarity about what is being claimed here.
I'm not Luddite myself. I agree that there may have been golden ages in the most ancient past, the Vedic homeland in the north, Thule, the Hyperboreans? But that was probably the exception as we know from anthropological remains, more common was brawling with baboon to get at a stinking slimy water hole.
I couldn't agree more. It takes a tremendous and terrible amount of violence. As Nietzsche wrote in Beyond Good and Evil, “almost everything that we call "higher culture" is based upon the…intensifying of cruelty” (§229).It is doubtful if any 'uncivilized' people have ever became 'civilized' voluntarily.
Last edited by Seleucus on Sat Sep 30, 2017 6:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Yes, nothing could be more true. The important difference between 3rd World people and civilized people is cognitive structures. This is why Korea or Germany could rebuild in a generation and why Indonesia and Nigeria are stagnating. An important point to consider with regards to Aboriginals and Red Indians, it isn't a matter of making material improvement to Indian Reservations, the savages will ruin any nice things they are given, the important thing is to figure out how to develop the minds.
An example of engineering minds from China,
"Every single ethnic Uyghur must hand in any Islam-related items from their own home, including Qurans, prayers and anything else bearing the symbols of religion …the Chinese government has severely restricted the practice of Islam throughout the state—from banning Muslim names like Muhammad” and “Arafat” to forcing shops to sell haram items such as cigarettes and alcohol—and promoted “ethnic unity” campaigns meant to dilute Uighur identity by promoting intermarriage and imposing Mandarin over the Uighur language.
So how do you explain the difference between North and South Korea? Did the cognitive structures within Korea suddenly diverge, around 1950?
Reading Raffle's History of Java, Vol I last night I see that Raffles identifies the point between 1724 and and 1730 as when Dutch colonization crossed the line from profitable to an expense. As the Dutch took on more governmental responsibility over territory and its population the cost of investment and development came to dwarf the value extracted from the colonies.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests