Colonialism wasn't all bad‚ says Helen Zille

[FoXtroT]

How often is it said that the Roman empire had lasting positive effects on the nations it consumed? The Moors on Spain? The Greek empire? Persian empire? Even the Mongol empire in most of the eastern nations?

But no, acknowledging colonialism had some positive effects is taboo; how was it any different?

 

[konfab]

How often is it said that the Roman empire had lasting positive effects on the nations it consumed? The Moors on Spain? The Greek empire? Persian empire? Even the Mongol empire in most of the eastern nations?

But no, acknowledging colonialism had some positive effects is taboo; how was it any different?

The Ottoman empire as well.

 

[saturnz]

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.

The Charlie Hebdo attack led to unified demonstrations in France against terrorism

I take it in your world a unified demonstration against terrorism is not a positive thing?

 

[OrbitalDawn]

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.




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

Nope. It's literally the definition of colonialism.

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.

Nope.

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.

Sure, but so what? It's stupid to try and argue for political ideas for the present on the back of the "positives of colonialism", when those positives aren't actually intrinsic to colonialism, especially in a country like ours. And especially if you're a leader of the DA that's trying to shed the old image.

 

[rietrot]

The Charlie Hebdo attack led to unified demonstrations in France against terrorism

I take it in your world a unified demonstration against terrorism is not a positive thing?

Lol yeah the terrorist attacks were so awesome it led too everyone everywhere uniting against it for a short period of time.
To me that's still only negative and totally insignificant.
Try again?

 

[FoXtroT]

Nope. It's literally the definition of colonialism.



Nope.



Sure, but so what? It's stupid to try and argue for political ideas for the present on the back of the "positives of colonialism", when those positives aren't actually intrinsic to colonialism, especially in a country like ours. And especially if you're a leader of the DA that's trying to shed the old image.

Yeah so what? Thats what I've been trying to say the whole time. It happened, now do we bitch about it incessantly or do we use what we have and move forward? I think in some way that was what she was trying to say (by giving the Singapore example).

Politically I agree with you. Its incredibly stupid. Not that I think the outrage is in anyway valid.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Yeah so what? Thats what I've been trying to say the whole time. It happened, now do we bitch about it incessantly or do we use what we have and move forward? I think in some way that was what she was trying to say (by giving the Singapore example).

Politically I agree with you. Its incredibly stupid. Not that I think the outrage is in anyway valid.

The "so what" is aimed at you bringing up an a-historical irrelevancy.

And she's the one that brought it up. She could very easily have made all the points she did (about focusing on this and that, blah blah) without referencing or framing things as "positives of colonialism", especially since I don't think it's particularly accurate.

And actually, if one looks at some of the things she's trying to ascribe to colonialism, we actually only got them after the ANC came into power.

 

[FoXtroT]

The "so what" is aimed at you bringing up an a-historical irrelevancy.

And she's the one that brought it up. She could very easily have made all the points she did (about focusing on this and that, blah blah) without referencing or framing things as "positives of colonialism", especially since I don't think it's particularly accurate.

And actually, if one looks at some of the things she's trying to ascribe to colonialism, we actually only got them after the ANC came into power.

You were the one bringing up the a-historical irrelevancy by saying the colonialists should have just traded with the local populace and everything would have been fine and dandy.

 

[rietrot]

And actually, if one looks at some of the things she's trying to ascribe to colonialism, we actually only got them after the ANC came into power.

Just say what you want to say and stop being vague. What did she ascribe to colonialism that only happened after the ANC got to power?

 

[OrbitalDawn]

You were the one bringing up the a-historical irrelevancy by saying the colonialists should have just traded with the local populace and everything would have been fine and dandy.

Nope, that was you with saying it was "disregarding human nature", while in reality it's been part and parcel of human history for just as long as war.

 

[FoXtroT]

Nope, that was you with saying it was "disregarding human nature", while in reality it's been part and parcel of human history for just as long as war.

Until someone else came along. You're being naive again.

 

[Pitbull]

This whole hang-up with history is the reason the world isn't progressing.

History defines us, nothing wrong with that, we need to take that, be proud of where we came from and move forward. I don't see the Jews in Germany still crying about the holocaust, nor the Afrikaners about the English killing their families in Concentration camps. At some point, people need to move on for the better good in the advancement of all involved.

Having to constantly being dragged back to such a place hinders unity and growth.

But alas...

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Until someone else came along. You're being naive again.

Or didn't... Look, this is a fairly pointless avenue since both happened (and continues to happen).

My point is a simple one, I think she was inaccurate in ascribing the "positives" to colonialism, because it's neither inherent therein, and you don't require it for those benefits.

But more importantly, she could have made the exact same points she wanted to without framing it in that way, which not only detracts from the actual point she was making, but created yet another headache for the DA to resolve. And she undercut her own (let's get on with it) message by doing it this way, since she's carelessly reigniting the same thing she's trying to get away from.

 

[etienne_marais]

If colonialism, in the sense of ruling over other people is bad then completely independent, sovereign nation states should be adhered to.

There is no reason why territory can not be obtained by conquest and negotiation in Africa just because it is Africa. Tribes of all races have been displacing other tribes since the dawn of time, there is nothing special about Africa and the fact that our ancestors did not come overland should not matter. Clearly this integrationist, globalist paradigm is just leading to infinite frustration and conflict.

 

[konfab]

My point is a simple one, I think she was inaccurate in ascribing the "positives" to colonialism, because it's neither inherent therein, and you don't require it for those benefits.

Of course you don't require it for those benefits in 2017 with our understanding of free market economies and liberalism. But can you give another example of when one society applied those benefits to another in that colonial era without colonialism.

It even applies in relatively recent times:

The document set two main objectives for the occupation: (1) eliminating Japan's war potential and (2) turning Japan into a western-style nation with pro-American orientation. Allied (primarily American) forces were set up to supervise the country, and "for eighty months following its surrender in 1945, Japan was at the mercy of an army of occupation, its people subject to foreign military control."[10] At the head of the Occupation administration was General MacArthur, who was technically supposed to defer to an advisory council set up by the Allied powers, but in practice didn't. As a result, this period was one of significant American influence, described as early as 1951 that "for six years the United States has had a free hand to experiment with Japan than any other country in Asia, or indeed in the entire world."[11] Looking back to his work in Japan, MacArthur described the Japanese reactions as acting similar to "a boy of twelve" and were at odds of putting away their troubled past. [12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Japan#Outcomes

But let me guess colonialism and imperialism are two completely different things eh?

 

[saturnz]

Lol yeah the terrorist attacks were so awesome it led too everyone everywhere uniting against it for a short period of time.
To me that's still only negative and totally insignificant.
Try again?

we are not playing by your rules

if you feel demonstrations against atrocities is insignificant then its quite clear you only see what you want to see

 

[Garson007]

How often is it said that the Roman empire had lasting positive effects on the nations it consumed? The Moors on Spain? The Greek empire? Persian empire? Even the Mongol empire in most of the eastern nations?

But no, acknowledging colonialism had some positive effects is taboo; how was it any different?

It has lasting effects. I don't think anyone disagrees.

When you start to attribute good and bad you're editorialising and creating a narrative that doesn't take into account the complexities involved.

 

[FoXtroT]

we are not playing by your rules

if you feel demonstrations against atrocities is insignificant then its quite clear you only see what you want to see

In the grander scheme of things it is. No one is going to remember it in a 100 years.

 

[saturnz]

In the grander scheme of things it is. No one is going to remember it in a 100 years.

who cares, the point is there are positives from terrorism too, whether people wish to recognise it or not is immaterial

 

[FoXtroT]

It has lasting effects. I don't think anyone disagrees.

When you start to attribute good and bad you're editorialising and creating a narrative that doesn't take into account the complexities involved.

The fact is people do it with those examples all the time, even the experts. Not everyone has the time to delve into every avenue when discussing these sorts of topics.