Imperialism

Dionysus

Imperialism can never be a good thing. The positive side-effects of imperial domination are hugely outweighed by the cultural oppression, repression of freedom of expression, brutal treatment of native peoples, in some cases outright genocide, that almost invariably ensue from imperialist domination.

That's like saying Socialism doesn't work because of the gulags: there's no necessary link between imperialism and those things. Indeed, I'd say if anything it is nationalism that is more likely to cause that.

Furthermore, it is a gross breach of the sovereignty of another nation and totally unjustifiable under any kind of conception of international law or justice.

Well, international law today is only of recent creation. But I should remind you that most imperial territories of recent times were not simply seized by conquest.

Reply 43

Varsity

13

Delta Usafa

What about them exactly?

You said Zimbabwe was doing well for itself, I am simply using Russia as an example of a rich nation that has terrible social problems particularly in public health.

When we left Zimbabwe it was in a fantastic state clearly showing imperialism can do good for the ‘oppressed’.

Delta Usafa

But of course natives tend to be fine until foreigners (usually Europeans) come around and introduce invasive diseases that their bodies have no immunities to. And THEN they need hospitals.

But if you can build fancy hospitals for your colonists, surely you can spare a little money for the people who lived there first.

That’s exactly what happened, so what’s your problem?

Delta Usafa

Actually, because they were all self-sustainable and living simple lives free of the materialism that comes with long distance commerce.

Free to live all 30 odd years that was the life expectancy.

Delta Usafa

I'm sure their hospitals make all the genocide and cultural suppression completely a non-issue. :yep:

Like all the genocide that has taken place around the world without the need for an empire or even a nation.
No one is saying Empires are without fault, simply that they can bring some benefits over the long term, and often bring then a lot faster than if a nation was left to evolve on its own.

Delta Usafa

And you make money until you leave the country in shambles.

They asked us to leave.

Delta Usafa

That is, if the place even had money to begin with. For the most part, the age of imperialism was just everyone scrounging across the globe for any land they could find, whether it was valuable or not.

Strategic value is often more important than raw materials/money.

Reply 44

Oswy

If imperialism was a win-win situation it would have flourished

Like Communism did, Oswy? :p:

instead it was resisted and outsted, sometimes by force, sometimes before force became necessary.

That's not true. Take the Roman Empire - for centuries, perhaps even a good millennium, after its fall, various people were employing their laws and attempting to create a 'new Rome'. Indeed, you can well argue that it has been the aim of virtually every civilised European state up to the present day.

Darkel

Because telling darkies that they're too stupid to run they're own countries is slightly racist

Nothing to say you can't engage darkies in the process of governance. In British India, for example, it certainly wasn't only white Europeans in positions of authority.

Anyway, is it racist? The Africans for one have rather ably demonstrated something very close to a complete inability to successfully govern themselves. Which isn't really surprising: they were expected to advance from very low levels of civilised society to the same level as European civilisation in a fraction of the time it took Europeans.

Reply 45

L i b

Like Communism did, Oswy? :p:

That's not true. Take the Roman Empire - for centuries, perhaps even a good millennium, after its fall, various people were employing their laws and attempting to create a 'new Rome'. Indeed, you can well argue that it has been the aim of virtually every civilised European state up to the present day.

I think he's realised what a hastily written statement it was and has gone into hiding...

Reply 46

Darkness and Mist

And what system would you say is so good? western democracy? yes it really works and obviously has solved all the problems in the world.

I am not a racist thank you very much you ignorant arse, first of all I think the dvisions of country and the lack of unity between man is what causes racism and hence I see the unification of peoples under an empire that upholds the rights of all men regardless of race as a possible solution to this problem.

Also I was brought up to respect all peoples, I lived in a boarding school with many people of different races and had many friends. I am also in an interacial relationship with another member of this site if you must know. So quite frankly your assupmtions are misplaced and based on your own ignorance as to the nature of other people and your own stereotyping, I would consider you as close minded as a racist tbfh.

Democracy means we all have some say in how society is organised, and it means we all have some say in changing things when we don't like what our leaders are doing. Are you really so naive that you think 'all the problems in the world' can be solved by some kind of magic? Did imperialism solve anything or did it generate hostility and rejection? Why would a happy people reject imperialism if it worked so well for all concerned? Do you even know that imperialism was maintained only through a huge military presence and harsh penalties for anyone who even spoke of resistance? Why would that be? Have you even read a single book about imperialism?

Here's a starting point: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/08/RVG3FCHG2T1.DTL&type=books

Reply 47

L i b

Like Communism did, Oswy? :p:

You mean statism claiming to be 'communism'.

Reply 48

Oswy

You mean statism claiming to be 'communism'.

So imperialism failed because it was imperialism and nasty and wrong whereas communism on the other hand failed because of other reasons :rolleyes:

. Such an argument doesn't hold up to defeat communism in your eyes so using it against imperialism is just foolish.

Reply 49

Oswy

You mean statism claiming to be 'communism'.

Really depends on whether you recognise the difference between one type of imperialism and another. If you're going to expect me to view "Communism" in more than a black-and-white "it's what happened in the Soviet Union" fashion, then I think you really ought to see Imperialism as encompassing more than simply what happened in India or Africa.

Either way, if you're going to pass off one period of history as some sort of empirical proof that an ideology does work, then I really ought to point out the errors in your empirical method: you fail in basic rigour.

Reply 50

Oswy

Democracy means we all have some say in how society is organised, and it means we all have some say in changing things when we don't like what our leaders are doing. Are you really so naive that you think 'all the problems in the world' can be solved by some kind of magic? Did imperialism solve anything or did it generate hostility and rejection? Why would a happy people reject imperialism if it worked so well for all concerned? Do you even know that imperialism was maintained only through a huge military presence and harsh penalties for anyone who even spoke of resistance? Why would that be? Have you even read a single book about imperialism?

Yet again replace imperialism with communism...

Reply 51

L i b

Really depends on whether you recognise the difference between one type of imperialism and another. If you're going to expect me to view "Communism" in more than a black-and-white "it's what happened in the Soviet Union" fashion, then I think you really ought to see Imperialism as encompassing more than simply what happened in India or Africa.

Either way, if you're going to pass off one period of history as some sort of empirical proof that an ideology does work, then I really ought to point out the errors in your empirical method: you fail in basic rigour.

Libertarians who defend imperialism, whatever next :rolleyes:

Reply 52

Oswy

Why would a happy people reject imperialism if it worked so well for all concerned? Do you even know that imperialism was maintained only through a huge military presence

Since we seem to have descended into anecdotal evidence, here's my ever-so-enlightened refutation:

Reply 53

Delta Usafa

1

Varsity

You said Zimbabwe was doing well for itself, I am simply using Russia as an example of a rich nation that has terrible social problems particularly in public health.

Trying to find the relevance.

When we left Zimbabwe it was in a fantastic state clearly showing imperialism can do good for the ‘oppressed’.

And exactly what time frame are we looking at here? Because I'm no expert on the history of Zimbabwe, but I know it wasn't that simple and there was a civil war or two thrown there too.

That’s exactly what happened, so what’s your problem?

The fact that it happened in the first place is my problem. o.O

Free to live all 30 odd years that was the life expectancy.

Could I see the figures on pre-colonial Africa life expectancies?

Like all the genocide that has taken place around the world without the need for an empire or even a nation.

No one is saying Empires are without fault, simply that they can bring some benefits over the long term, and often bring then a lot faster than if a nation was left to evolve on its own.

They bring short term benefits. The long term is when things start getting messed up. But even in the short term, things suck for the people living there.

They asked us to leave.

And thank you for obliging!

Strategic value is often more important than raw materials/money.

There was no strategic value to a lot of the places that were colonized. Like I said, people were just grabbing whatever they could and hoping for the best.

Elipsis

Sorry I didn't notice. It's quite interesting that they did have some civilisations there, but lets be honest it wasn't a lot and is more the exception that proves the rule.

It's not an exception. It was an empire that lasted over a thousand years and covered a huge portion of Africa. Then there was also the Nubian civilization, the Egyptians, the Ghanas, the Swahili, the Zulu, etc.

Reply 54

Elipsis

Yet again replace imperialism with communism...

It's interesting how I've never claimed to be a communist nor defended communism, actual or putative. Still, constructing strawmen is what Elipsis does, he never has an actual argument to offer up.

Reply 55

Oswy

Libertarians who defend imperialism, whatever next :rolleyes:

I am fundamentally anti-nationalist. Whilst I object to aggression and invasion, I don't - as the nationalist and anti-imperialist - judge governments solely on the skin colour of their chief, I judge them on their achievements.

Reply 56

littleshambles

14

Imperialism entails that power is centralised beyond that which is practicable. The Roman and British Empires were both simply too massive to be administrated and policed effectively using one directive power. Even with better technology, it would be extremely difficult to have an imperial administration which covered the entire globe. You may as well just give territories self-government and let them voluntarily enter into an "international" government.

The main argument against imperialism, even discounting the cultural and racial questions and economic exploitation (the imperialism of the last 300 years really needs to be considered in its context), is that it necessitates (assumes, even) statism.

Reply 57

Darkness and Mist

OP

9

Oswy

Democracy means we all have some say in how society is organised, and it means we all have some say in changing things when we don't like what our leaders are doing. Are you really so naive that you think 'all the problems in the world' can be solved by some kind of magic? Did imperialism solve anything or did it generate hostility and rejection? Why would a happy people reject imperialism if it worked so well for all concerned? Do you even know that imperialism was maintained only through a huge military presence and harsh penalties for anyone who even spoke of resistance? Why would that be? Have you even read a single book about imperialism?

Why do people reject socialism? (winter war, the whites in Russia, most western governments) would you like me to go on about the history of socialism and all the trouble it has caused without listening to what you are saying?, I started this thread as discussion on alternative politics not as a ''call me a racist and stereotype like an ignorant daily mail reading ingrate'' thread.

I have said I want all to have representation.
I have said the past isnt today and I dont base my views on the British Empire or any dogma spouted by ignorant poeple.
I have said i am racially inclusive and dont want to exploit anyone.
I have said that it is a dream, implying it isnt a 'magic fix'

I said all this before you posted.

so

It would be nice to get an apology for an unfounded offensive comment about me being a racist by the way, you seemed to hush up about that very quickly after my last post.

Reply 58

Oswy

It's interesting how I've never claimed to be a communist nor defended communism, actual or putative. Still, constructing strawmen is what Elipsis does, he never has an actual argument to offer up.

Socialism then, it doesn't matter what we put. If you replace imperialism with socialism in every statement you've made in this thread it holds water, yet you would disagree. The argument that imperialism failed because it was imperialism and wrong can be applied equally to socialism and every socialist experiment the world has seen. If socialism was a win-win situation it wouldn't have been rejected by the populace; agree? I didn't think so. You have a whole host of reasons why it was done wrong that discount it being socialisms fault at all, so for you to try and make the same argument against imperialism is laughable. It is you who is favouring the strawman argument.

Reply 59