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

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

gaffo
Posts: 1926
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

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

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

note, historically though the Spanish had steel armor, guns, and horses, they would have not conquered the Aztecs without the Aztec neighbors that allied with them (i.e. Aztecs were assholes) - had the aztec not been dicks the Spanish in the first epedition would have all died out.

noting the above - steel, guns, horses............the Spanish would have won a century later then they actually did (disease plays a huge part too..........smallpox/pluage ravaged europe 1000 yr prior (so made surviving euroopean though - had it done the same in the NW it would have made the Am indians same tough, but it did not, and so disease took a huge toll).

but without the help of the natives, the spanish would have been whipped out the first time around.

as it was many Spanish died "on the bridge"................sadly. i feel for all pleab soldiers - from any side.

Age
Posts: 1715
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age » Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:06 am

gaffo wrote:
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)
Well having bad many beers does not help you.

Maybe if you have good many beers instead that might help. But probably to late to have those ones now. Maybe next time hey?


gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 8:09 am
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.
Why is the standard "low"? 'Low' relative to what exactly?

And, if the american indians had agriculture, or not, then what has that got to do with?
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 8:09 am
you have two Empiires, Aztecs (inherited from the Maya) and Inca = neither "liberal" in mindset.
I thought I did say BEFORE peoples from other lands came and started imposing their "authority" over others.

gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 8:09 am
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.
What so called "nobel rule" are you referring to? I NEVER mentioned one.

Also, who/what was the 'older thug'?

gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 8:09 am
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.
I have never disputed YOUR observation. YOUR observation is what YOU see, which can not be denied. You just ask WHY? I am giving suggestions to see if they COULD BE the answer that you are looking for.

Could the ones who follow the "rule of law" just be the more weaker, follower, and/or fearful and scared type of people than the "others" are? And, thus those societies could be looked at at being the "lesser" societies than the ones who do not follow the "rule of law" as much?

Also, could "standard of living" be looked at and seen differently from "rule of law" and they not necessarily be in relation to each other.

By the way what do the "british colonies" seem to offer more of, than the "others" do?
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 8:09 am
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,
HOW do you propose that these indigenous peoples BEFORE peoples from other lands "visited" them had less liberty than they do in the year called "2019"?

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.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 8:09 am
I ask why so.
I know you ask why so, that is why I am giving you suggestions so.

Also, what does "dog eat dog" mean in relation to "liberty" or "standards of living"?

And, how do you propose there was a "dog eat dog" world BEFORE peoples from other lands came to other lands?
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 8:09 am
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 suggested some thing, then asked you could "THIS" be the reason 'why', which is what you were seeking here. You have already clarified this with a resounding NO. End of story regarding that.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 8:09 am
i thank you for reply and look forward to small words to understand your point on the matter,
My point is the term "higher standard of living" is a very relative and subjective term. Do I still need to use smaller words and shorter sentences for you to understand this?

i was obviously very wrong in thinking that this was already KNOWN and really did NOT need spelling out so much. (More examples of WHY it is better to NEVER assume any thing at all).

gaffo
Posts: 1926
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

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

Post by gaffo » Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:16 am

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:39 am
Therefore, why do you then think that former british colonies have a "higher standard of living"?

not sure why, just observation.

IMO.



Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:39 am
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?
yes i was brought up as an American- so that offers a grown bias affirming Enlightment concepts of Rule of Law.

I'm open of better alternatives though, i strive for openmindedness.

if you have a better political ideal i'm ameable to learning a better pol philosophy.

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:39 am
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.
I understand what you are saying/asking.

offer the alternative, i have ears/mind to hear/consider it.


Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:39 am
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.
I don't see that, but if you can provide particulars i loved to become more educated/corrected.

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:39 am
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".
?????????

I noted the sad history of 1858 - when India revolted in Civil War, and many indians died (sadly) - Brits ruled both prior and aft that time, 80 yrs later Ghandi and his brethren in positions of power in India though opposed British Rule, affirmed her mentality (Western ideas of Rule of Law, unified culture with Hindi as the official language, Sep of Religion from State - Muslims/Hindus equally Inidan) - this mindset is a product of British Rule. I,e, Ghani took what was of value for India.


not sure what your point is.................


Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:39 am
Could the actual act of FEAR be what is actually responsible for this APPARENT "higher standard and more liberty way of living"?
?? I'm dumb, clarify please,

welcome discussion, just have to understand before discuss.

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:39 am
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.

ibid.



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.
???????????? again don't follow.

I'm a dumbshit.

small words. short sentences please, then i can reply cogently.

gaffo
Posts: 1926
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

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

Post by gaffo » Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:20 am

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:06 am
gaffo wrote:
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)
Well having bad many beers does not help you.

Maybe if you have good many beers instead that might help. But probably to late to have those ones now. Maybe next time hey?
ya for next time/week

cheers mate! ;-)

gaffo
Posts: 1926
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

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

Post by gaffo » Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:28 am

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:06 am

i was obviously very wrong in thinking that this was already KNOWN and really did NOT need spelling out so much. (More examples of WHY it is better to NEVER assume any thing at all).
I'm really a dumbshit. welcome clear small words.

you saying English rule over colonies offered a reversal of liberty in the modern lands of.

clarify how/why so.

gaffo
Posts: 1926
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

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

Post by gaffo » Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:33 am

no, serously, what is your argument Age.

i was clear centuries ago - no like colonialism.

you saying "colonialism is bad"

ya, agree, and?

i observed that of all the colonies, the British ones seem to be doing well, unlike colonies of other nations.

you dissagree? why so if so.

you dissagree that the former brit colonies are doing well?

if so why so?

you think they would be doing better if never a Brit colony?

if so why so?

clarify.

Age
Posts: 1715
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age » Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:48 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
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


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.
And you did that well i thought, from your perspective.

All I was doing was giving a perspective from if it was the land that you lived on, which then became something different, by "others", which was now foreign to you, then would you be reacting and behaving the same way?
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 8:49 am
If aliens came here they would see a lot of moronic ants frenziedly destroying their own nest and allihilating their own kind.
I could not disagree with you at all, but I did not ask you what would be obviously seen but rather I asked you how do you explain to your younger moronic frenzied "ant" children how this was not a 'take over', not an 'invasion', and not a 'colonization' but rather just a lot of people from another place just wanting to create a uniting government, for and by themselves only, in order to form a new universal identity for this place, which you and your children once knew as some thing else?

Although you are now being threatened, forced, punished, imprisoned, and even killed if you do not follow exactly how you are told to, would you really be telling your younger ones that this is fine and do not worry about it. Would you be explaining that they are just creating a new place, with new rules of law, which we will HAVE TO abide by and adhere to if we want to live or live freely, and which we can not question at all?

Would you really be telling your peers and the younger ones that earth was NOT colonized at all. It was just created by lots of "people/aliens", and saying it in a tone that infers that there is really nothing at all wrong with this?
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 8:49 am
But as a human I understand what a country is.
As a human being you have an INTERPRETATION of what 'a country' is. How you understand what 'a country' is is but just one interpretation of that.

To me, 'a country' is just the name given to a parcel of land, nothing more, nothing less. But to infer that 'a country' was created only when lots of people went to live there, from another place, is certainly NOT many people's interpretation of what 'a country' is.

Also, understanding what 'a' country is is one thing, while understanding 'country' is another thing.

The trouble when people travel to other lands in order to take control over of that land from other people, they tend to not want to understand the 'country', the land, at all but instead prefer to just concentrate on how they can 'remove' the land from those people, take ownership of it from them, and then keep it for themselves, have full control over it, and even how they can control those "people". Usually always just for nothing but monetary or wealthy gains.

There really is NO wonder why the "ants" are frenziedly destroying their own nest and annihilating their own kind. The reasons WHY they are doing this is plainly obvious to SEE.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 7657
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 11:00 am

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:48 am

All I was doing was giving a perspective from if it was the land that you lived on, which then became something different, by "others", which was now foreign to you, then would you be reacting and behaving the same way?

It has happened, and there's not a heck of a lot I can do about it.

Age
Posts: 1715
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age » Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:35 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:00 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:48 am

All I was doing was giving a perspective from if it was the land that you lived on, which then became something different, by "others", which was now foreign to you, then would you be reacting and behaving the same way?

It has happened, and there's not a heck of a lot I can do about it.
You are right, there is not a lot you can do about it. But, do you think that you would you be reacting and behaving the same way as you are now?

Age
Posts: 1715
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age » Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:54 pm

gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:16 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:39 am
Therefore, why do you then think that former british colonies have a "higher standard of living"?

not sure why, just observation.

IMO.



Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:39 am
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?
yes i was brought up as an American- so that offers a grown bias affirming Enlightment concepts of Rule of Law.
I do not understand. Can you clarify?

What does "a grown bias affirming Enlightment concepts of Rule of Law" mean?
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:16 am
I'm open of better alternatives though, i strive for openmindedness.
Instead of making great efforts to achieve what is naturally very simple and easy to do, just truly understand what it actually means to be OPEN. I found that helps to ALWAYS remain OPEN.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:16 am
if you have a better political ideal i'm ameable to learning a better pol philosophy.
Just observe any people who have NOT been influenced from or by people from other lands. That is the ideal way of life.

Now, if you can NOT observe people like that, then you will just have to use imagination. Take ALL "politics" out of the equation and you will instantly have a much better idea and better ideal.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:16 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:39 am
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.
I understand what you are saying/asking.
Great, you have cleared that up. However;
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:16 am
offer the alternative, i have ears/mind to hear/consider it.
I am NOT here to offer any alternatives to what you have already CONCLUDED. You have already decided what is true, right, and correct. I am NOT here to change your decision. I am just here to help you find the answer to WHY what you concluded is right.

You asked "Why is "that" (what you have already concluded) is correct?" I am giving you suggestions/ideas to think about. If what i give you does NOT explain "Why, what you have concluded is correct, then you will just have to keep looking for that answer. Or, alternatively maybe if you can NOT find that answer, then that could infer that what you have "concluded" is NOT actually true, right, nor correct in the beginning?

But that would not be a possibility, could it? You would not want what you have already "concluded" to be right, to actually be wrong, would you?
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:16 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:39 am
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.
I don't see that,
OF COURSE you do not see that. Any one who has read your opening post obviously KNOWS that you do not see that. You specifically stated that you see the OPPOSITE. That is how this discussion started.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:16 am
but if you can provide particulars i loved to become more educated/corrected.
That is a rather non-specific request. If I can provide particulars TO WHAT EXACTLY?

First, Tell me precisely what it is EXACTLY that you want to become more educated/corrected about?
Second, You have already concluded some thing so why would you want to be more educated/corrected in regards to that conclusion? Especially considering when you are asking Why is your conclusion right?
Third, Do you believe that what you have concluded is true, right, and/or correct?

If you do, then there is no point in me even trying to educate/correct you. Usually when one is asking to be educated/correct about some thing that they have already concluded is true, then this is just a sarcastic, skeptical, and cynical comment. The real context, and emotion, behind comments/statements like these can not be transpired through the written word. I have learned that actual evidence does not even work in overriding BELIEFS. I am still learning how to overcome this with and through communication. So, are open to the fact that what you have concluded could actual be completely WRONG?


gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:16 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:39 am
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".
?????????

I noted the sad history of 1858 - when India revolted in Civil War, and many indians died (sadly) - Brits ruled both prior and aft that time, 80 yrs later Ghandi and his brethren in positions of power in India though opposed British Rule, affirmed her mentality (Western ideas of Rule of Law, unified culture with Hindi as the official language, Sep of Religion from State - Muslims/Hindus equally Inidan) - this mindset is a product of British Rule. I,e, Ghani took what was of value for India.
Yes you did note all of that. Pity it just has NOTHING whatsoever to do with what I have actually said.


gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:16 am
not sure what your point is.................
You have been in this state for some time now.

gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:16 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:39 am
Could the actual act of FEAR be what is actually responsible for this APPARENT "higher standard and more liberty way of living"?
?? I'm dumb, clarify please,

welcome discussion, just have to understand before discuss.
If you want to understand, before discussing, are you at all OPEN to the prospect that what you see as a "higher standard of living and more liberty" is in fact completely and utterly WRONG?

If you TRULY want to understand, then you would ask clarifying questions, instead of just writing things like; "I'm dumb, clarify please".

It really does help the other person when you inform of what it is exactly that you do NOT understand, and what helps greater is to ask very specific clarifying questions, from a truly open perspective. Then you will gain very specific clarity and true and full understanding.

gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:16 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:39 am
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.

ibid.
I could ask, "Clarify please" but I will work it out alone.

ibid page 1.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:03 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:39 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.
???????????? again don't follow.
You have concluded some thing.
You want to know, Why that is?
You have suggested that having historical knowledge helps.

I have NOT concluded what YOU have.
So, I do NOT want to know the answer to "Why is that?", like YOU do.
I, also, do NOT have historical knowledge like YOU do.

Therefore, I am only providing suggestions regarding "Why that is", for YOU to think about. Take them or leave them. The choice is solely yours. If you take them and they do not provide the answer that you are seeking, then so be it.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:16 am
I'm a dumbshit.
If you repeat things enough times you can start to believe them, even if others know that it is NOT true.

gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:16 am
small words. short sentences please, then i can reply cogently.
This was in YOUR opening post:
I have 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?


You asked the question: Why is that? I have given you a list of things to consider. If you take my suggestions, consider them, and then can NOT see any reason for 'why that is', then so be it. I am NOT going to give you the answer. I am only giving you things to consider, for your own self.

Just because we are in a "philosophy" forum that does NOT mean that I am taking any particular side and arguing for any point of view, especially considering when you are just asking the question; "Why is that?" in relation to YOUR OWN particular concluded position.

If you ask "Why is that?" in relation to some thing, then expect to get responses giving you suggestions to "why that MIGHT BE".

Age
Posts: 1715
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age » Sun Feb 10, 2019 2:01 pm

gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:28 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:06 am

i was obviously very wrong in thinking that this was already KNOWN and really did NOT need spelling out so much. (More examples of WHY it is better to NEVER assume any thing at all).
I'm really a dumbshit. welcome clear small words.

you saying English rule over colonies offered a reversal of liberty in the modern lands of.

clarify how/why so.
I would NEVER say; "english rule over colonies "offered" a reversal of liberty in the modern lands of" because I do not even know what that means.

What I have and would say is, if peoples have NOT been influenced from peoples of other lands, then they have far more liberty than any person under english rule of law has.

HOW? Because there was NO oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.
WHY? Because there was NO oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views, like there is now under english rule of law.

Age
Posts: 1715
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age » Sun Feb 10, 2019 2:14 pm

gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:33 am
no, serously, what is your argument Age.

i was clear centuries ago - no like colonialism.

you saying "colonialism is bad"

ya, agree, and?
I do not recall saying "colonialism is bad". In fact it is an inevitable part of nature. It was bound to happen, and there is a very good reason for it also.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:33 am
i observed that of all the colonies, the British ones seem to be doing well, unlike colonies of other nations.
Yes we KNOW that this is what you observed.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:33 am
you dissagree? why so if so.
I do not recall saying I disagree.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:33 am
you dissagree that the former brit colonies are doing well?

if so why so?
Have you seen the pollution, the rates of human beings going in and out of prison, the addictions, the abuse of power, the abuse of children, the waste of money on weapons that could be used for proper education, health, and well-being, the judgmenting, the arguing, the fighting, the crime, the greed, the wars, the dishonesty, and the other things that I have forgotten, which happen in british formed colonies?

So, I do NOT see them doing to well at all. In fact at the rate at which they are going the whole of humanity will not be doing at all, let alone doing well.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:33 am
you think they would be doing better if never a Brit colony?

if so why so?

clarify.
If people were NEVER colonized by any colony, then they would be doing much better. In fact people were doing perfectly, until they were colonized. You only have to look at and observe those who have NOT been colonized.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 7657
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 6:07 pm

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:35 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:00 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:48 am

All I was doing was giving a perspective from if it was the land that you lived on, which then became something different, by "others", which was now foreign to you, then would you be reacting and behaving the same way?

It has happened, and there's not a heck of a lot I can do about it.
You are right, there is not a lot you can do about it. But, do you think that you would you be reacting and behaving the same way as you are now?
I imagine it would be a very similar feeling to when your country is flooded with immigrants who don't assimilate and have completely different politics, culture and values, rendering the home you once knew, as unrecognisable.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1478
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

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

Post by FlashDangerpants » Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:06 pm

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.
For starters, that isn't a terribly comprehensive list. Britain had two distinct empires in many senses. There is the mainly American empire prior to the establishment of the USA, replaced by a largely Asian and African empire thereafter.

Having had a larger empire than anyone else, and having two very distinct phases of it, we offer you a larger pool than other countries do to cherry pick data, although you forgot Singapore. Zimbabwe is a former British colony where democracy promptly collapsed which then became a dictatorship with horrible circumstances. Burma is another impoverished dictatorship. Pakistan is fairly close to descending into failed statehood. Uganda was ruled by Idi Amin who killed about half a million people.

Of those successes you list, there's quite a few where indigenous populations were forced off their land, and in several cases genocide was committed somewhere down the line. We probably shouldn't conclude from this that genocide is the key to success here, it takes some of the shine off things.

There were some differences between Anglo colonization and those of some European powers though. In the late Victorian period, English imperialists took pride in not behaving as the Dutch did in the East Indies and especially as Belgium did in the horror show they inflicted on the Congo. They considered themselves removed from that sort of rapacious barbarism.

In short, Britain, France, Portugal in the later years of their empires were interested in a form of imperial sustainability. That's a normal feature of long lasting empires which survive the early phases of profit mining. The original resources we invaded all those countries to get at became less valuable over time. Sugar, tea and coffee became cheap staples. Rubber and other industrial resources lost their worth, all the gold got dug up, and lots of other resources you never really think of went the same way. People in India died in huge numbers for instance because German chemists synthesized a better purple dye, and indigo crops became worthless overnight.

So we stopped using India as a source of valuable dyes, and started using it as a source of manpower and consumers instead. That incentivised us to spend less time on making them carry out tasks for us, and look for cost savings instead by using local manpower in the administration of the colony - something that was always a strength of the British and French empires anyway became a key competitive advantage. In retrospect, it all amounted to a very slow withdrawal of empire, although nobody thought of it that way and it certainly wasn't planned. Had WWII not happened, it would still have happened, perhaps with fewer fuckups, couldn't really say.

A lot of what you are referencing is just luck. The dice could have fallen differently, and you might have been writing this in praise of France, had they gone for a full democratic system in Vietnam, and had they pulled out Algeria 10 years sooner.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 7657
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 9:23 pm

It also depends on how far back you want to go. The 'indigenous' people here had committed genocide on the previous 'indigenous' people long before the unfashionable 'evil white colonialists' arrived here. Then you had the Normans, Dutch, Mongols, Greeks, Romans, Muslims, Turks .......
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests