Colonialism wasn't all bad‚ says Helen Zille

[Pitbull]

Ok I don't understand this...

How the fark can ANYONE compare Nazi Germany to colonialism?

Geesus

 

[konfab]

It's like telling your wife she's fat. It might be the truth but now it's not going to work out great for either of you.

Telling people a lie is only hurts them later.

 

[Fulcrum29]

I don't know whether this was posted or not,

http://www.politicsweb.co.za/news-and-analysis/da-politicians-denounce-zille-over-colonialism-twe

DA politicians denounce Zille over colonialism tweet

An effort by former Democratic Alliance leader and Western Cape Premier to suggest that South Africa should learn the lessons of Singapore’s success has resulted in her being denounced by numerous DA MPs and her referral to the Federal Legal Commission by party leader Mmusi Maimane.

The offending series of tweets read as follows:

Much to learn from Singapore, colonised for as long as SA, and under brutal occupation in WW2. Can we apply the lessons in our democracy?

Singapore had no natural resources and 50 years ago was poorer than most African countries. Now they soar. What are the lessons?

I think Singapore lessons are: 1) Meritocracy; 2) multiculturalism; 3) work ethic; 4) open to globalism; 4) English. 5) Future orientation.

Other reasons for Singapore's success: Parents take responsibility for children, and build on valuable aspects of colonial heritage.

For those claiming legacy of colonialism was ONLY negative, think of our independent judiciary, transport infrastructure, piped water etc.

Would we have had a transition into specialised health care and medication without colonial influence? Just be honest, please.

Getting onto an aeroplane now and won't get onto the wi-fi so that I can cut off those who think EVERY aspect of colonial legacy was bad.

The third last tweet in particular contravened an important article of faith of African nationalists – that the colonialists are to blame for all of Africa’s misfortunes – and this provoked a virulent reaction from within the DA itself.

Continued

 

[Fulcrum29]

Are you saying they needed someone to bring to them what they have today? And how would they have bargained with something that was undiscovered?

You do not need colonialism to prospect. My point is that the people do not have to be exploited to have what they have today. Trade relations are the building stones to bargaining.

 

[konfab]

I'll quote my reply to Sinbad again because I think it applies:

How is healthcare, rule of law etc. an aspect of colonialism, though? They might have been aspects (to an extent) of the colonial authority, but tying them to colonialism serves zero purpose, historically or politically. None of these positive aspects are intrinsic to or require colonialism. So treating them as a "positive aspect of colonialism" strikes me as not only unnecessary, but inaccurate.

Colonialism was the very idea of foreign ideals from one society(which included the positives and negatives) to the undeveloped world. Read this about the Romans and Greeks:

The conquest of vast territories brings multitudes of diverse cultures under the central control of the imperial authorities. From the time of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, this fact has been addressed by empires adopting the concept of universalism, and applying it to their imperial policies towards their subjects far from the imperial capitol. The capitol, the metropole, was the source of ostensibly enlightened policies imposed throughout the distant colonies.

The empire that grew from Greek conquest, particularly by Alexander the Great, spurred the spread of Greek language, religion, science and philosophy throughout the colonies. While most Greeks considered their own culture superior to all others (the word barbarian is derived from mutterings that sounded to Greek ears like "bar-bar"), Alexander was unique in promoting a campaign to win the hearts and minds of the Persians. He adopted Persian customs of clothing and otherwise encouraged his men to go native by adopting local wives and learning their mannerisms. Of note is that he radically departed from earlier Greek attempts at colonization, characterized by the murder and enslavement of the local inhabitants and the settling of Greek citizens from the polis.

Roman universalism was characterized by cultural and religious tolerance and a focus on civil efficiency and the rule of law. Roman law was imposed on both Roman citizens and colonial subjects. Although Imperial Rome had no public education, Latin spread through its use in government and trade. Roman law prohibited local leaders to wage war between themselves, which was responsible for the 200 year long Pax Romana, at the time the longest period of peace in history. The Roman Empire was tolerant of diverse cultures and religious practises, even allowing them on a few occasions to threaten Roman authority.

In the case of Africa, it was the deliberate imposition of European society into Africa. You can't just sweep that out the picture because you don't like it. You are disregarding the mechanism by which it came about.

 

[Fulcrum29]

Yeah... with an average IQ of 72 - which includes the "colonialists", by the way - I'm gonna say yeah, it is.

Yeah… bold one part, ignore the other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_Education_Act,_1953

The introduction of Bantu Education led to a substantial increase of government funding to the learning institutions of black Africans, but it did not keep up with population increase.[4] The law forced institutions under the direct control of the state. The National Party now had the power to employ and train teachers as they saw fit. Black teachers' salaries in 1953 were extremely low and resulted in a dramatic drop of trainee teachers. Only one third of the black teachers were qualified.[1]

The schools reserved for the country's white children were of Western standards. 30% of the black schools did not have electricity, 25% no running water and less than half had plumbing. The education for Blacks, Indians and Coloureds was not free.[1] In the 70s, the per capita governmental spending on black education was one-tenth of the spending on white.[3]

...

The act was repealed in 1979 by the Education and Training Act, 1979, which continued the system of racially segregated education. Segregation became unconstitutional after the introduction of the Interim Constitution in 1994, and most sections of the Education and Training Act were repealed by the South African Schools Act, 1996.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Colonialism was the very idea of foreign ideals from one society(which included the positives and negatives) to the undeveloped world. Read this about the Romans and Greeks:


In the case of Africa, it was the deliberate imposition of European society into Africa. You can't just sweep that out the picture because you don't like it. You are disregarding the mechanism by which it came about.

No, it was the deliberate exploitation and oppression of the local populace to benefit the homeland, explicitly at the expense of the locals.

If remnants of the colonising authority had positive effects, it's incidental, and more importantly, not required or inherent.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Jacques Rosseau explains it well.

http://synapses.co.za/helen-zille-valuable-aspects-colonial-heritage/

To describe anything good that might have originated during colonialism as an “aspect of colonial heritage” foregrounds colonialism, and makes it appear to be a necessary cause for that thing’s existence.

(The distinction here is between a cause without which something wouldn’t have happened – a necessary cause – and a cause which (perhaps) results in something happening, but where it might have happened in any case – a sufficient cause.)

But these goods are arguably achieved despite colonialism, rather than thanks to it, in South Africa at least. Colonialism was a project of asset-stripping, set up to enhance the welfare of one race, ultimately at the expense of the vast majority of the population, who are still underprivileged because of colonialism, and who will continue to be for generations to come.

And, you can achieve those goods without colonialism too. As a friend put it on Facebook:

Countries and societies develop in large part as a consequence of exchange and interaction with outsiders, and that’s a good thing. The point is it is possible to have that exchange and interaction without invasion and subjugation.

You could of course ask questions about the historical accuracy of Zille’s view too. Consider tweet #5, and whether it’s sensible to credit colonialism with our “independent judiciary”, given that we only got that under an ANC government. But I’ll leave questions regarding history to others, except for linking you to this piece on the Empire’s “gifts” to India, which has obvious parallels to our situation.

 

[FoXtroT]

No, it was the deliberate exploitation and oppression of the local populace to benefit the homeland, explicitly at the expense of the locals.

If remnants of the colonising authority had positive effects, it's incidental, and more importantly, not required or inherent.

Harping on about how it didn't need to happen in order for these 'positive effects' to occur is disregarding human nature since the dawn of time and which has only in the last 80 odd years has been somewhat tempered. By human nature, I mean the notion of kill or be killed. Overpower or be overpowered.

Colonialism is no different to the empire building that has been engaged in ever since the first caveman learnt the power gained from killing. The only thing different with colonialism was its ability to build empires away from a nation's contiguous land borders thanks to the advancements of sea travel (only the big sea faring nations became significant colonisers).

Saying that peaceful trading could have occurred is being wilfully naive as to how the world worked, and in many ways still works. To keep arguing about it (and outraged) serves absolutely zero purpose.

 

[rietrot]

No, it was the deliberate exploitation and oppression of the local populace to benefit the homeland, explicitly at the expense of the locals.

If remnants of the colonising authority had positive effects, it's incidental, and more importantly, not required or inherent.

Your use of the word "deliberate" is wrong there is no evidence the the colonisers set of from Europe with the intent to oppress and exploit the local populace.
You also have a very unique view on what constitutes exploitation, please clarify that.
Who exactly do you consider the local populace? Do you include the Dutch farmers?
Which homeland are we talking about and what expense of the locals?

Your second paragraph is complete SJW mambo jambo. The remnants is everything and absolutely required not incedental. lol

 

[Vrotappel]

No, it was the deliberate exploitation and oppression of the local populace to benefit the homeland, explicitly at the expense of the locals.

If remnants of the colonising authority had positive effects, it's incidental, and more importantly, not required or inherent.

Thanks for confirming her tweet. There were benefits even if the conquerors did not have it in mind.

 

[Vrotappel]

I wonder if the colonisation of Khoikhoi territories by the Bantu-speaking black Africans had any benefits for the Khoikhoi.

 

[saturnz]

I guess terrorism isn't all bad too.

 

[Fulcrum29]

I wonder if the colonisation of Khoikhoi territories by the Bantu-speaking black Africans had any benefits for the Khoikhoi.

It benefited the Xhosa people, it developed their language. The Khoikhoi were mostly assimilated, cultural appropriation. I can’t remember which Bantu group, but one had a very ‘special’ designation for the natives. My Google skills are lacking, but it is documented somewhere.

 

[Fulcrum29]

I guess terrorism isn't all bad too.

Freedo...

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Harping on about how it didn't need to happen in order for these 'positive effects' to occur is disregarding human nature since the dawn of time and which has only in the last 80 odd years has been somewhat tempered. By human nature, I mean the notion of kill or be killed. Overpower or be overpowered.

Colonialism is no different to the empire building that has been engaged in ever since the first caveman learnt the power gained from killing. The only thing different with colonialism was its ability to build empires away from a nation's contiguous land borders thanks to the advancements of sea travel (only the big sea faring nations became significant colonisers).

Saying that peaceful trading could have occurred is being wilfully naive as to how the world worked, and in many ways still works. To keep arguing about it (and outraged) serves absolutely zero purpose.

Nonsense. Trading and knowledge sharing between people is just as old as war and violence.

 

[konfab]

No, it was the deliberate exploitation and oppression of the local populace to benefit the homeland, explicitly at the expense of the locals.

If remnants of the colonising authority had positive effects, it's incidental, and more importantly, not required or inherent.

You are wrong again.

18th century Europe wasn't this utopia that was leeching off the colonies. You just have to read anything by Dickens to know the type of society they lived in. It was a brutal society that only benefitted the rich. Colonialism bought that society as a whole with its good and bad to Africa.

Legislation passed in 1722 entitled parishes to provide poor relief in specially built workhouses. By the 1770s there were around 2,000 such workhouses in the country housing nearly 100,000 people. 90 separate workhouses operated in London alone, housing around 15,000 inmates. Poor people were lodged in single sex ‘wards’ where the able-bodied were set to menial tasks: spinning thread or sewing clothes, for example, and inmates were ordered to follow strict rules of behaviour and to conform to daily routines. Jeremy Bentham described how workhouses were essentially prison-like structures, designed principally ‘to grind rogues honest’.
But life in the workhouse varied enormously from parish to parish. Some workhouses were clean and comfortable havens for the poor. Many provided education, rudimentary health care and clean clothing. Others echoed to the sound of children playing, many of whom were placed in local businesses as apprentices, and most workhouses allowed visitors to come and go as they pleased. Other parishes – particularly in small rural communities - refused to build parish workhouses altogether owing to their substantial running costs. In many parishes ‘outdoor’ relief remained the chief means of assistance, administered to the poor on an individual basis.

Other workhouses, however, were dark and foreboding places. Many were hopelessly overcrowded. Some London workhouses accommodated well over 700 people. Inmates receiving relief were made to wear special uniforms or badges that signified their demeaning status. Many people contracted diseases and died within their walls, and were later buried in unmarked mass pauper graves. In the 1750s social investigator Jonas Hanway discovered that the death rate amongst workhouse children in London was over 90%. Thus the opening of a new workhouse in some areas was occasionally the cause of serious rioting, and many of the poor preferred to starve rather than enter their gloomy confines.

https://www.bl.uk/georgian-britain/articles/poverty-in-georgian-britain

Also:
Do you honestly think that people in Africa were not exploited and oppressed by their leaders? Colonialism simply swapped out one set of leaders with another set of leaders who had more advanced society.

 

[FoXtroT]

Nonsense. Trading and knowledge sharing between people is just as old as war and violence.

That it is, but only when they have equal levels of power. As soon as the balance of power changes, the peaceful trading tends to end up in a war because the more powerful now senses they can have it all instead of a mutually beneficial relationship.

 

[Vrotappel]

Yeah we can all agree that human history was **** but all the good we have today also comes from that same history.

 

[rietrot]

I guess terrorism isn't all bad too.

Jeez. We're talking about historical events that shaped te future to what we have today. Stop trolling.
Or show us an example of a terrorist attack that had any positive effect.