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

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 2448
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age » Wed Feb 27, 2019 6:44 am

gaffo wrote:
Tue Feb 26, 2019 12:26 am
Age wrote:
Sat Feb 23, 2019 7:32 am

How about from now on just answering my question instead of assuming that I am saying some thing.

When you see a question from me just imagine that it is a question asked from a Truly OPEN perspective, and then just answer it. Give that a try and let us SEE what happens.
sounds good to me, im willing if you are.
What do you mean "IF I am"? I HAVE BEEN asking your questions.
gaffo wrote:
Tue Feb 26, 2019 12:26 am
so please clarify your views.
The WHOLE point of me asking you clarifying questions is so that I gain more clarity of what YOUR view IS.

If i am asking clarifying questions, then that means I do NOT necessarily have a view at all.
gaffo wrote:
Tue Feb 26, 2019 12:26 am
small works short sentances for a dummy.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8073
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

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

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Wed Feb 27, 2019 7:22 am

gaffo wrote:
Tue Feb 26, 2019 2:45 am


Its a mircle Zodiac was not caught, he had 1 close call, and seemed to quit after that time. despite his ego which i'm sure was crying out to write more letters (he wrote only one 5 yrs later (79)just to say he was still alive).
Perhaps it's you. They really do love to talk about themselves :shock:

gaffo
Posts: 2352
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

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

Post by gaffo » Fri Mar 08, 2019 4:35 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 7:22 am
gaffo wrote:
Tue Feb 26, 2019 2:45 am


Its a mircle Zodiac was not caught, he had 1 close call, and seemed to quit after that time. despite his ego which i'm sure was crying out to write more letters (he wrote only one 5 yrs later (79)just to say he was still alive).
Perhaps it's you. They really do love to talk about themselves :shock:
yes, some do. though its too long to catch the guy (by now the trail is cold - guy is prob dead by now too) - the key to finding "Who the Zodiac was" is to be found in Riverside. Some do not think he killed Bates, but i think he did and it was his first kill.

first kills usually allows clues (rookie) - IMO, he prob knew her, wanted her, but never had the chance (did not ask her out - coward - instead fantisized over her, then killed her (he know her from a class they both had in Riverside College imo).

cops are great in evidence, but suck in psychology, so ignored the concept of finding the guy via Riverside college/bates killing. to date only maybe only 1/2 of folks think he was involved in that killing (he was - catching him is central to affirming this, and looking to riverside college students in mid 60's).

Jojen_31
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:59 am

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

Post by Jojen_31 » Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:17 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?

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.
Colonialism is bad but it has been extremely common throughout human history. It's kind of how we've always expanded; it isn't something that began with Europe. Basically any large, established territory today began as a small state that expanded and gobbled up the weaker/less organised/less prepared states around it. In some cases - like Hong Kong - the territory should have been colonized by a much nearer state but they never bothered so it was snatched up by more expansive states.

Anyway, the different tactics adopted by different colonizers/invaders determines how a country will end up to some degree. When the Maori invaded the Morimori, they apparently just killed them all, took everything, and left. Same story with Belgium in the Congo. Obviously that leaves a country completely crippled for generations. Britain tended to care more about setting up lucrative gravy trains which would last hundreds of years (trade routes that obviously benefited them a hell of a lot more than it benefited the Canadians, Indians, or South Africans, but the point stands). Many of the commanders were extremely cruel to the local populations, but they weren't on a genocidal rampage like the Belgians or Spanish.

Geography also comes into play. Canada, India, the US, Malaysia, Myanmar, Hong Kong - countries either rich in resources, established industries, perfectly located for international trade, or all of the above. Many of the places that the other European states invaded were too large to govern properly, lacking in established trade routes, hard to navigate, lacking in natural resources, lacking in developed industry, and so on.

So when the colonizers leave, the country is free from political oppression, but nothing can free them from nature's cruel yoke - if your country is hard to navigate, low in resources, has few natural ports, has no developed technology or education system, etc., then it's going to struggle no matter what.

gaffo
Posts: 2352
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

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

Post by gaffo » Sat Mar 23, 2019 4:24 am

Jojen_31 wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:17 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?

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.
Colonialism is bad but it has been extremely common throughout human history. It's kind of how we've always expanded; it isn't something that began with Europe. Basically any large, established territory today began as a small state that expanded and gobbled up the weaker/less organised/less prepared states around it. In some cases - like Hong Kong - the territory should have been colonized by a much nearer state but they never bothered so it was snatched up by more expansive states.

Anyway, the different tactics adopted by different colonizers/invaders determines how a country will end up to some degree. When the Maori invaded the Morimori, they apparently just killed them all, took everything, and left. Same story with Belgium in the Congo. Obviously that leaves a country completely crippled for generations. Britain tended to care more about setting up lucrative gravy trains which would last hundreds of years (trade routes that obviously benefited them a hell of a lot more than it benefited the Canadians, Indians, or South Africans, but the point stands). Many of the commanders were extremely cruel to the local populations, but they weren't on a genocidal rampage like the Belgians or Spanish.

Geography also comes into play. Canada, India, the US, Malaysia, Myanmar, Hong Kong - countries either rich in resources, established industries, perfectly located for international trade, or all of the above. Many of the places that the other European states invaded were too large to govern properly, lacking in established trade routes, hard to navigate, lacking in natural resources, lacking in developed industry, and so on.

So when the colonizers leave, the country is free from political oppression, but nothing can free them from nature's cruel yoke - if your country is hard to navigate, low in resources, has few natural ports, has no developed technology or education system, etc., then it's going to struggle no matter what.
wise post, and agree. i know of the Belgium Congo ;-(.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest