British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
gaffo
Posts: 1904
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by gaffo » Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:49 pm

Of course all Colonialism is bad by default.

Just thinking about history, and concluded that all the former Brit colonies:

Hong Kong, South Africa, India, Autralia, NZ, Canada, USA, have a higher standard of living and more liberty generally than former nations of other colonial powers.

why is that?

again, not affirming the merits of colonialism - lol, but it seems to me nations today from colonial powers other than that of Britian in general have a lower standard of living, and less liberty.

Age
Posts: 1687
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by Age » Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:40 am

gaffo wrote:
Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:49 pm
Of course all Colonialism is bad by default.

Just thinking about history, and concluded that all the former Brit colonies:

Hong Kong, South Africa, India, Autralia, NZ, Canada, USA, have a higher standard of living and more liberty generally than former nations of other colonial powers.

why is that?
I am not sure of the dates of when these countries were colonized/invaded but could the so called "higher standard of living" have something to do with being invaded later on historically?
gaffo wrote:
Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:49 pm
again, not affirming the merits of colonialism - lol, but it seems to me nations today from colonial powers other than that of Britian in general have a lower standard of living, and less liberty.
Imagine if these countries were NOT colonized/invaded at all. They had the most purest standard of living, which was and is still far beyond anything compared to in today's terms. Thus, they had the most, of course depending on the definition for, 'highest standard of living', as well as, the most liberty that any one could have.

Unfortunately, besides the people on the North Sentinel Island and those very few other remote tribe's peoples, who do not follow the "modern or "western" way of living, "high standards" and liberty are all but lost. At least with these very few last remaining indigenous peoples left, the rest have some kind of right and good order to guide them to what is actually Right and Good in Life.

gaffo
Posts: 1904
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by gaffo » Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:46 am

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:40 am
gaffo wrote:
Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:49 pm
Of course all Colonialism is bad by default.

Just thinking about history, and concluded that all the former Brit colonies:

Hong Kong, South Africa, India, Autralia, NZ, Canada, USA, have a higher standard of living and more liberty generally than former nations of other colonial powers.

why is that?
I am not sure of the dates of when these countries were colonized/invaded but could the so called "higher standard of living" have something to do with being invaded later on historically?
1890, 1890, 1860, 1730, 1750, 1620, 1620..............thereabouts per the particular nations in order of original post.


Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:40 am
gaffo wrote:
Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:49 pm
again, not affirming the merits of colonialism - lol, but it seems to me nations today from colonial powers other than that of Britian in general have a lower standard of living, and less liberty.
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:40 am
Imagine if these countries were NOT colonized/invaded at all. They had the most purest standard of living,

they had/would have a standard of living - per whatever level - without colonial influence.

good or bad.

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:40 am
which was and is still far beyond anything compared to in today's terms. Thus, they had the most, of course depending on the definition for, 'highest standard of living', as well as, the most liberty that any one could have.
??? don't follow.

I'm dumb.

welcome education.
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:40 am
Unfortunately, besides the people on the North Sentinel Island and those very few other remote tribe's peoples, who do not follow the "modern or "western" way of living, "high standards" and liberty are all but lost. At least with these very few last remaining indigenous peoples left, the rest have some kind of right and good order to guide them to what is actually Right and Good in Life.
still dumb - don't follow. see above.

concerning my observations/thread? your views - welcome small words/concepts for the thick (I like thick chick BTW - refer to thick of mind - myself included, and would welcome clarification - in really small words, so i can follow and contribute to my own thread if able to).

thanks for reply Sir - you are a kewl person from my noting of your others posts here.
thanks again, and hope for clarification of your view per this thread.

gaffo
Posts: 1904
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by gaffo » Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:48 am

the cut/paste system for the weakminded here sucks, but you can figure it out.

carry on.

gaffo
Posts: 1904
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by gaffo » Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:59 am

but seriously, outside of Brazil (now hurting and with wahts his name (Bulsinaro) new dictator wannbe - prior was doing well economically..........past Portugal colonial history...............the rest of the former colonies of other nations outside of Britian are a mess.

and of the British ones, most are have been doing quite well (I credit Ghandi - personally (as him the person, and me crediting him - for uniting that nation (unlike Modi (the latter will be a test of the Indians (whom i respect - Indians, not Modi - the latter is a tribal dick - lol).

I just seems in spite of British arrogance, they somehow imparted a higher good (rule of law?) - to her colonies. unlike other european (french/german/belgium/etc colonies)

I mean Nigeria is doing better than Rep of Congo, Camaroon..............

maybe i generalize too much and the particulars on the ground over-ride my thesis of British colonies thesis.

just positing in idea that popped in my head today about the matter.


carry on.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 7645
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:02 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:48 am
the cut/paste system for the weakminded here sucks, but you can figure it out.

carry on.
It's a loaded word: 'colonialism'. The PC just adore it. What does it even mean? The US wasn't 'colonised'. It was created when lots of people went to live there and it eventually became what is now the USA. A piece of land is not a country until it has a uniting Government and national identity. There's a lot of guff put about by self-serving twits over the word 'country' and what constitutes 'taking over'.

gaffo
Posts: 1904
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by gaffo » Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:09 am

I affirm self rule, and also personally think the British Common Law/Enlighment concepts are the best in this world to date.

that they were made my white men is irrelivent for me - i affirm common humanity - if those concepts were born via history by Oreintals or Blacks and imported to europe/usa - fabulous!

but that was not the case historically.

i do not affirm colonialism, but affirm any influence it may have had in making the lives and govermental constucts in Nigeria/South Africa/etc..........in making the lives therein living better.

gaffo
Posts: 1904
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by gaffo » Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:19 am

Both Mandela and Ghandi have my full respect. Both had full right to demand the blood of whites, and instead affirmed the higher character (and thousands of lives were not lost due to thier character).

I think both men are not given the respect they deserve IMO.

yes, both SA and India are now in "trouble" and backsliding.............i just wish both nations well and that the folks living there revere the memory of thier leader, and strive to fix their toubles and not take the easy tribel blood libel mentality of losers.

we shall see.

.............

We (you and I - geopolitically) will need a strong united India to counter China in the 21st century (sadly China does not seem to value Western Ideals- rule of law).

just sayin.

gaffo
Posts: 1904
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by gaffo » Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:03 am

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:40 am

I am not sure of the dates of when these countries were colonized/invaded but could the so called "higher standard of living" have something to do with being invaded later on historically?

no, there is no historical evidence of promoting liberty via colonialization (outside of the USA - the outlier)...................India had a bloody Civil War - shortly after British Rule - 1858? - where many died for independence, but lost. Brits won.

knowledge of history is apt in particulars IMO.

Age
Posts: 1687
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by Age » Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:26 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:46 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:40 am
gaffo wrote:
Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:49 pm
Of course all Colonialism is bad by default.

Just thinking about history, and concluded that all the former Brit colonies:

Hong Kong, South Africa, India, Autralia, NZ, Canada, USA, have a higher standard of living and more liberty generally than former nations of other colonial powers.

why is that?
I am not sure of the dates of when these countries were colonized/invaded but could the so called "higher standard of living" have something to do with being invaded later on historically?
1890, 1890, 1860, 1730, 1750, 1620, 1620..............thereabouts per the particular nations in order of original post.
So, generally, are these invasions/colonization by "british peoples" historically later on relative to other take overs by "other peoples"?
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:46 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:40 am
gaffo wrote:
Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:49 pm
again, not affirming the merits of colonialism - lol, but it seems to me nations today from colonial powers other than that of Britian in general have a lower standard of living, and less liberty.

Imagine if these countries were NOT colonized/invaded at all. They had the most purest standard of living,
they had/would have a standard of living - per whatever level - without colonial influence.

good or bad.
Yes this is true. But, if you are able to write "higher standard of living", then are you able to see and understand a "higher standard" of living from a "lower standard" of living? If yes, then are you also able to see and understand a "good standard" of living from a "bad standard" of living? If yes, then great.

If no, and that you now know this, then do you now wonder Why not?
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:46 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:40 am
which was and is still far beyond anything compared to in today's terms. Thus, they had the most, of course depending on the definition for, 'highest standard of living', as well as, the most liberty that any one could have.
??? don't follow.

I'm dumb.

welcome education.
Each land's original human descendants had the most liberty that any one could have. That is, they were as free as could be within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on their way of life and behavior, until peoples from other lands came and started imposing their "authority" over them. Consider this from the perspective of the australian or american indigenous people before they had been influenced by people from other lands yet. They had far more liberty than any so called "western" person of today, when this is written.

As for the term "higher standard of living" that is a very subjective term, but from my perspective those original peoples had a far 'higher standard of living' then most people do in that so called year "2019".
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:46 am

still dumb - don't follow. see above.

concerning my observations/thread? your views - welcome small words/concepts for the thick (I like thick chick BTW - refer to thick of mind - myself included, and would welcome clarification - in really small words, so i can follow and contribute to my own thread if able to).
Imagine living in a pollution free world, not having to deal with human created diseases, being truly happy with what you have by not wanting more, and just living peacefully in harmony with absolutely everyone around you.

Now, some people still, barely, live like that. Imagine what you could learn from these people and what ideas of Right and Good could be gained from them.

This is not about being "dumb" and not being able to follow but just looking past one's conception of life and living and considering things way before this "current way of life" came about.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:46 am
thanks for reply Sir - you are a kewl person from my noting of your others posts here.
thanks again, and hope for clarification of your view per this thread.
If you want to gain real clarification, then just ask specific questions in regards to what exactly that you unsure about. I am able to clarify absolutely every thing I say, but it helps when I know exactly what it is that you are searching for.

You were asking 'Why is it?' that the lands that the british people have colonized have a "higher standard of living"? I just posed some thing to think about, which was; IF, and only IF, in relative terms, the british are the latest to colonize/invade other lands, then is that/could that be the reason there is a supposed "higher standard of living" in those countries? I also suggest/inferred that "higher standard of living" is just a subjective term and thus is a very relative term also.

The rest of what I wrote was just putting a light on how, from another perspective, 'an even higher standard of living' can be seen from the one that you were suggesting was.

Age
Posts: 1687
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by Age » Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:39 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:03 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:40 am

I am not sure of the dates of when these countries were colonized/invaded but could the so called "higher standard of living" have something to do with being invaded later on historically?

no,
Okay, so you have concluded that all the former Brit colonies have a higher standard of living and more liberty generally than former nations of other colonial powers, and you have just now confirmed that the reason WHY this is so is NOT because of what I put up as a suggestion. Therefore, why do you then think that former british colonies have a "higher standard of living"?

If you are still unaware WHY, then another suggestion I put forward is; Could it be because you were brought up in and by a former british colony country and so you have a prejudiced view that it is in fact a "higher standard of living with more liberty generally" than former nations of other colonial powers?

I am just suggesting things, and then just asking you if these suggestions COULD BE the reasons WHY you see these countries as having "higher standards and more liberty" than others do.

Remember that that is your perception, because I, for one, certainly do NOT see a higher standard of living nor more liberty in those former british colonized lands. In fact in certain circumstances the very opposite could be far more true.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:03 am
there is no historical evidence of promoting liberty via colonialization (outside of the USA - the outlier)...................India had a bloody Civil War - shortly after British Rule - 1858? - where many died for independence, but lost. Brits won.
If british people kept "winning" when they invaded/took over/colonized the peoples of other lands, then could the act of threatening, punishment, slavery, imprisonment, and/or killing be a reason WHY there APPEARS to be a "higher standard of living and more liberty".

Could the actual act of FEAR be what is actually responsible for this APPARENT "higher standard and more liberty way of living"?

By the way, the PERCEPTION of a "higher standard and more liberty way of living" is only on the surface and very superficial at best, because if one was to peel back the lays and look at this from a truly deep and meaningful level, the Truth is far different from what first APPEARS to be the case.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:03 am
knowledge of history is apt in particulars IMO.
Could that be a reason WHY I suggested and proposed to you; 'If, historically, then ...?'

IF you have the historical knowledge, THEN you would be apt to KNOW the answer. You would also be the only true one apt in KNOWING what the Right answer is because you are the one who concluded what you have here.

gaffo
Posts: 1904
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by gaffo » Sun Feb 10, 2019 8:09 am

thanks for reply Age. i don;t fallow all you have to say below but will try to understand (have bad many beers - lol)
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:26 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:46 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:40 am


I am not sure of the dates of when these countries were colonized/invaded but could the so called "higher standard of living" have something to do with being invaded later on historically?
1890, 1890, 1860, 1730, 1750, 1620, 1620..............thereabouts per the particular nations in order of original post.
So, generally, are these invasions/colonization by "british peoples" historically later on relative to other take overs by "other peoples"?
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:46 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:40 am



Imagine if these countries were NOT colonized/invaded at all. They had the most purest standard of living,
they had/would have a standard of living - per whatever level - without colonial influence.

good or bad.
Yes this is true. But, if you are able to write "higher standard of living", then are you able to see and understand a "higher standard" of living from a "lower standard" of living?
yes, i understand the relative, and note that that is why (to the oppressed Aztec's neighborhood trides follly (beign oppressed by the Aztecs, chose to ally themselves with the Spanish.............the rest is history.

at the time those tribes chose as i would, Aztecs were dicks.............only a true prophet would know of latter history (Spain ruling over all of the Western World - again, at that time the Aztecs were dicks and all the nieghbors with a conscience would aliegn with Spanish.............Aztecs would have been wiser to not be dicks to her neighbors in 1400, then when the Spanish arrived, none would have aligned against them.

but history is a bitch, and though no lover of the Spanish, the Aztec were no better and got their reward IMO.

sad that the neighbors of the aztecs not fucked, but that is history - choose the lesser of evils. and as said above - if i were an indian, would chose the spanish over the aztecs in those shoes.



Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:40 am

Each land's original human descendants had the most liberty that any one could have.


That is, they were as free as could be within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on their way of life and behavior, until peoples from other lands came and started imposing their "authority" over them.
yes per - universal hunter gatherer (note that by the time the spanish arrived, American Indians had agrculture -corn). still the standard is low.

you have two Empiires, Aztecs (inherited from the Maya) and Inca = neither "liberal" in mindset.


dog eat dog world, as for all of our world prior to 3000 yrs ago.

so, no i reject any concept of "nobel rule" prior to the thuggish conquest of the "NEW World" - just a newer thug overthrowing an older one.


just noted that the Brit's colonies seemed to offer more than the others.................Spanish Mexicos/Philipines/etc............seem to be "lesser" WRT to Rule of Law/standard of living to date.

again observation.

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:40 am
Consider this from the perspective of the australian or american indigenous people before they had been influenced by people from other lands yet. They had far more liberty than any so called "western" person of today, when this is written.
nonesence, those societies were "dog eat dog" prior to the bigger dog taking over (European power) - I posit that the English version differs from other versions of userpation- as per evidence today.

I ask why so.


Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:40 am
You were asking 'Why is it?' that the lands that the british people have colonized have a "higher standard of living"? I just posed some thing to think about, which was; IF, and only IF, in relative terms, the british are the latest to colonize/invade other lands, then is that/could that be the reason there is a supposed "higher standard of living" in those countries? I also suggest/inferred that "higher standard of living" is just a subjective term and thus is a very relative term also.

???????????? don't follow still a dumbfuck.

small words, short sentences please.

i thank you for reply and look forward to small words to understand your point on the matter,

Age
Posts: 1687
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by Age » Sun Feb 10, 2019 8:21 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:02 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:48 am
the cut/paste system for the weakminded here sucks, but you can figure it out.

carry on.
It's a loaded word: 'colonialism'. The PC just adore it. What does it even mean?
It appears that even you want to be politically correct and look at a word and use it politically correctly.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:02 am
The US wasn't 'colonised'. It was created when lots of people went to live there and it eventually became what is now the USA. A piece of land is not a country until it has a uniting Government and national identity.
If "aliens" came to planet earth formed a uniting government and a universal identity and said that it was only a body of dirt and water, not inhabited by any thing of any importance and was not a planet until it had a uniting government and a universal identity, then that is what it is. No matter how many of your family and friends were killed, it was not 'taken over', not 'stolen', not 'invaded', not 'colonized', nor not any thing else. Planet earth was just "created" when lots of peoples/aliens went to live there and it eventually became what is is now the OURS (whoever that is who now says, "It is OURS).

Now, how do you explain to your children who are being forced to live a particular way of life, just like you are, which is totally foreign, unnecessary, and barbaric to you and them, that the US was not 'colonized' just like the OURS was also not 'colonized'. Both were just created by these lovely foreign people and aliens?

Depending on how OPEN one is and from what side they are looking at this from, two completely different views can be seen.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:02 am
There's a lot of guff put about by self-serving twits over the word 'country' and what constitutes 'taking over'.
You appear to be the one that started this particular part of the discussion.

What "guff", or definition, do you put over the word 'country', and, what constitutes 'taking over' coming from YOUR 'taking over of other people's land' heritage side of things?

The views from your perspective and your side of things is most welcome to be looked at.

By the way, what does 'PC' mean to you?

How do you define 'PC' exactly?

And, if you give your side and perspective of things, then does that make you a 'self-serving twit' also? Or, is that phrase only used for "other" people who have different or opposing views from yours?

gaffo
Posts: 1904
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by gaffo » Sun Feb 10, 2019 8:29 am

I reject the mentality of the "noble savage" (meaning "white man bad")

life is hard, savages come in all colors. equal good and bad from white man, brown man, black man, yellow man)

as do of good character.

history IS - had we had a offered redo, the American Indians could have "disscovered Europe" (no really - we had 30,000 yrs and only in the last 500 did it turn out the opposite - so conjecture is not odsurd (sp dyslexic) it could have happened.ii

if it did you think the American Indians would have travaled the higher moral road? - no caucasion reservations in europe?

bullshit!

man is man, had history favored Am Indians us "Whites" would be the oppressed on reservations.

....................

I affirm reallity - all men are the same - so not racist, nor hater of whites (I'm white)............we jsut happened to fuck over the indians before they were able to do the same to us.

I'm an universal humanist and affirm equal good and bad to all others outside my race (but human like me) - as acting exactly the same way if given the opporunity (good and bad).

thanks for reply BTW.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 7645
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sun Feb 10, 2019 8:49 am

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 8:21 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:02 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:48 am
the cut/paste system for the weakminded here sucks, but you can figure it out.

carry on.
It's a loaded word: 'colonialism'. The PC just adore it. What does it even mean?
It appears that even you want to be politically correct and look at a word and use it politically correctly.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:02 am
The US wasn't 'colonised'. It was created when lots of people went to live there and it eventually became what is now the USA. A piece of land is not a country until it has a uniting Government and national identity.
If "aliens" came to planet earth formed a uniting government and a universal identity and said that it was only a body of dirt and water, not inhabited by any thing of any importance and was not a planet until it had a uniting government and a universal identity, then that is what it is. No matter how many of your family and friends were killed, it was not 'taken over', not 'stolen', not 'invaded', not 'colonized', nor not any thing else. Planet earth was just "created" when lots of peoples/aliens went to live there and it eventually became what is is now the OURS (whoever that is who now says, "It is OURS).

Now, how do you explain to your children who are being forced to live a particular way of life, just like you are, which is totally foreign, unnecessary, and barbaric to you and them, that the US was not 'colonized' just like the OURS was also not 'colonized'. Both were just created by these lovely foreign people and aliens?

Depending on how OPEN one is and from what side they are looking at this from, two completely different views can be seen.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:02 am
There's a lot of guff put about by self-serving twits over the word 'country' and what constitutes 'taking over'.
You appear to be the one that started this particular part of the discussion.

What "guff", or definition, do you put over the word 'country', and, what constitutes 'taking over' coming from YOUR 'taking over of other people's land' heritage side of things?

The views from your perspective and your side of things is most welcome to be looked at.

By the way, what does 'PC' mean to you?

How do you define 'PC' exactly?

And, if you give your side and perspective of things, then does that make you a 'self-serving twit' also? Or, is that phrase only used for "other" people who have different or opposing views from yours?
All I'm doing is defining what constitutes a country. If aliens came here they would see a lot of moronic ants frenziedly destroying their own nest and allihilating their own kind. But as a human I understand what a country is.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dachshund and 5 guests