Go to first unread
Back
to top
What were the positives of British colonisation?
Watch
Announcements
Report
#2
If you are interested I can send you my course paper on the impact of colonisation on African societies. Just send me a private message
(Original post by JamesManc)
And European colonisation of the the world in general?
And European colonisation of the the world in general?
0
reply
Report
#3
(Original post by JamesManc)
And European colonisation of the the world in general?
And European colonisation of the the world in general?
0
reply
Report
#6
Chocolate. Tobacco (if one smokes, I don't), sugar, potatoes, spices.
India and Africa got infrastructure.
India and Africa got infrastructure.
0
reply
Report
#7
Technology that was introduced by Europeans was a huge benefit of colonisation
Modern medicine
infrastructure
agricultural techniques and science
education and legal systems still used today
opening up routes for world trade
Modern medicine
infrastructure
agricultural techniques and science
education and legal systems still used today
opening up routes for world trade
1
reply
Report
#8
(Original post by bolly_mad)
x
x
0
reply
Report
#9
(Original post by Kallisto)
I would say English as official language on the whole globe and (exotic) specialities in foreign cuisine for instance. Oh, don't forget to mention many mineral resources.
I would say English as official language on the whole globe and (exotic) specialities in foreign cuisine for instance. Oh, don't forget to mention many mineral resources.
0
reply
Report
#10
(Original post by Kallisto)
As colonisation is almost associated with negative terms and thoughts, it is not wrong to name some positive aspects, if they have existed.
As colonisation is almost associated with negative terms and thoughts, it is not wrong to name some positive aspects, if they have existed.
One side can say giving the English language was a positive given its primacy in the modern world. The other side could say the only reason English has primacy today is because many native languages were wiped out or subordinated to English during colonisation, and that English was intentionally and deliberately positioned as the most powerful language at the cost of native languages, in order to maintain control. For example, governance and administration being out of the ability of the majority of the native population, as they could not speak, read or write the language, meaning only the British and those who were educated/influenced by British culture could do so. The English language thus removed the choice and ability of most of the native people to govern themselves and legitimised British rule.
One side can say building railways and ports improved infrastructure in the colonies. The other could say those railways and ports were not for the use of the natives, but were built to transport stolen raw materials and mineral wealth from the colonies to the industrial and manufacturing areas of Britain and Europe.
My problem with this discussion, is that anyone listing a 'positive' is likely looking at the issue from only one side, and with a great deal of ignorance of the other side.
There were no absolute positives to colonisation. There is always another side.
2
reply
Report
#11
(Original post by bolly_mad)
The 'positives' are subjective. Depends on which side you're asking. What one side considers a positive, another may say is a negative.
One side can say giving the English language was a positive given its primacy in the modern world. The other side could say the only reason English has primacy today is because many native languages were wiped out or subordinated to English during colonisation, and that English was intentionally and deliberately positioned as the most powerful language at the cost of native languages, in order to maintain control. For example, governance and administration being out of the ability of the majority of the native population, as they could not speak, read or write the language, meaning only the British and those who were educated/influenced by British culture could do so. The English language thus removed the choice and ability of most of the native people to govern themselves and legitimised British rule.
One side can say building railways and ports improved infrastructure in the colonies. The other could say those railways and ports were not for the use of the natives, but were built to transport stolen raw materials and mineral wealth from the colonies to the industrial and manufacturing areas of Britain and Europe.
My problem with this discussion, is that anyone listing a 'positive' is likely looking at the issue from only one side, and with a great deal of ignorance of the other side.
There are no absolute positives to colonisation. There is always another side.
The 'positives' are subjective. Depends on which side you're asking. What one side considers a positive, another may say is a negative.
One side can say giving the English language was a positive given its primacy in the modern world. The other side could say the only reason English has primacy today is because many native languages were wiped out or subordinated to English during colonisation, and that English was intentionally and deliberately positioned as the most powerful language at the cost of native languages, in order to maintain control. For example, governance and administration being out of the ability of the majority of the native population, as they could not speak, read or write the language, meaning only the British and those who were educated/influenced by British culture could do so. The English language thus removed the choice and ability of most of the native people to govern themselves and legitimised British rule.
One side can say building railways and ports improved infrastructure in the colonies. The other could say those railways and ports were not for the use of the natives, but were built to transport stolen raw materials and mineral wealth from the colonies to the industrial and manufacturing areas of Britain and Europe.
My problem with this discussion, is that anyone listing a 'positive' is likely looking at the issue from only one side, and with a great deal of ignorance of the other side.
There are no absolute positives to colonisation. There is always another side.
What native languages have been wiped?
1
reply
Report
#12
(Original post by bolly_mad)
x
x
0
reply
Report
#13
(Original post by bolly_mad)
The 'positives' are subjective. Depends on which side you're asking. What one side considers a positive, another may say is a negative.
One side can say giving the English language was a positive given its primacy in the modern world. The other side could say the only reason English has primacy today is because many native languages were wiped out or subordinated to English during colonisation, and that English was intentionally and deliberately positioned as the most powerful language at the cost of native languages, in order to maintain control. For example, governance and administration being out of the ability of the majority of the native population, as they could not speak, read or write the language, meaning only the British and those who were educated/influenced by British culture could do so. The English language thus removed the choice and ability of most of the native people to govern themselves and legitimised British rule.
One side can say building railways and ports improved infrastructure in the colonies. The other could say those railways and ports were not for the use of the natives, but were built to transport stolen raw materials and mineral wealth from the colonies to the industrial and manufacturing areas of Britain and Europe.
My problem with this discussion, is that anyone listing a 'positive' is likely looking at the issue from only one side, and with a great deal of ignorance of the other side.
There were no absolute positives to colonisation. There is always another side.
The 'positives' are subjective. Depends on which side you're asking. What one side considers a positive, another may say is a negative.
One side can say giving the English language was a positive given its primacy in the modern world. The other side could say the only reason English has primacy today is because many native languages were wiped out or subordinated to English during colonisation, and that English was intentionally and deliberately positioned as the most powerful language at the cost of native languages, in order to maintain control. For example, governance and administration being out of the ability of the majority of the native population, as they could not speak, read or write the language, meaning only the British and those who were educated/influenced by British culture could do so. The English language thus removed the choice and ability of most of the native people to govern themselves and legitimised British rule.
One side can say building railways and ports improved infrastructure in the colonies. The other could say those railways and ports were not for the use of the natives, but were built to transport stolen raw materials and mineral wealth from the colonies to the industrial and manufacturing areas of Britain and Europe.
My problem with this discussion, is that anyone listing a 'positive' is likely looking at the issue from only one side, and with a great deal of ignorance of the other side.
There were no absolute positives to colonisation. There is always another side.
I do agree though, the only people who praise the Empire were those who hark back to Britain's power, or the uneducated who don't read/learn about what colonialism actually was like.
0
reply
Report
#14
(Original post by NativeToEurope)
What native languages have been wiped?
What native languages have been wiped?
0
reply
Report
#15
(Original post by NativeToEurope)
What native languages have been wiped?
What native languages have been wiped?
0
reply
Report
#16
(Original post by NativeToEurope)
What native languages have been wiped?
What native languages have been wiped?
0
reply
Report
#17
(Original post by DarkMagic)
Irish Gaelic is still spoken in some places in Ireland but, outside those, you'd struggle to find someone who knows more than a few words of it.
Irish Gaelic is still spoken in some places in Ireland but, outside those, you'd struggle to find someone who knows more than a few words of it.
0
reply
Report
#18
(Original post by bolly_mad)
Over 100 Aboriginal Australian languages have been wiped out for one.
Over 100 Aboriginal Australian languages have been wiped out for one.
0
reply
Report
#19
(Original post by NativeToEurope)
What aboriginal Languages?
What aboriginal Languages?
http://www.ctvnews.ca/dozens-of-abor...nesco-1.451581
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20066624
0
reply
(Original post by Kallisto)
I would say English as official language on the whole globe and (exotic) specialities in foreign cuisine for instance. Oh, don't forget to mention many mineral resources.
I would say English as official language on the whole globe and (exotic) specialities in foreign cuisine for instance. Oh, don't forget to mention many mineral resources.
0
reply
X
Quick Reply
Today on TSR
-
Lockdown affecting your relationship?Live Q&A with experts at 4pm! Ask your question now >
- Year 10s back to school on 15 June?
- What's the best type of tea?
- Find your uni group chat here!
- Are Year 10s revising?