Colonialism wasn't all bad‚ says Helen Zille

[CataclysmZA]

Being educated he probably knows that colonialism not only had positives but made everybody much better off but of course he can't say that.

This is debatable because the separation of the colony from its mother body, which took place for most countries that were colonised, tends to leave a power vacuum that lasts for half a century or more. Colonies tended to just become setup points to collect resources for one of the many empires that existed at the time, and it was less a cultural exchange and much more of a land and resource grab.

Hell, there's evidence that even suggests the British directly supplied arms and munitions to breakaway groups in African countries in order to get them to fight each other and create a power vacuum in which they could easily step into. The way things were handled in North America with the native Americans is very similar.

The injection of organised religion has its ills as well. Practically all of middle Africa, colonised by European powers that adopted some form of Christianity, condemns homosexuals because religious doctrine forbids it, and the separation of church and state isn't always possible. Very little in the way of democracy or human rights exists in many former colonies, and part of that is down to how the natives were treated by their new overlords. They just picked up the same lessons and applied them to their own people when locals were able to seize power.

That it went down the way it did here is besides the point that colonialism can neither be blamed or praised for anything as there is nothing inherent to it.

[video=youtube;q49QpNlMx0g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q49QpNlMx0g[/video]

Unless your position is that the locals couldn't make it on their own, in which case colonialism was required for them to achieve anything.

Technological advancement can occur without colonisation. Pan-Asian trade was occurring at the same time that European powers were colonising African countries and drawing up borders without regard for the cultural makeup of the people living in that area. If the DEIC hadn't basically become traders with a bunch of mercenary ships attached to them to protect their routes and assets, free trade with Africa could have continued unabated by Asian countries, and the landscape would be very different today.

Question for y'all - do you think all English (past and present) are responsible for all the elements of English colonialism worldwide?

To some degree, yes. The settling on the use of English as a business communication medium is one of the ways in which this is still re-enforced in today's society.

 

[etienne_marais]

Question for y'all - do you think all English (past and present) are responsible for all the elements of English colonialism worldwide?

Not at all, surprised that you even ask

 

[Willie Trombone]

To some degree, yes. The settling on the use of English as a business communication medium is one of the ways in which this is still re-enforced in today's society.

And how is Joe Bloggs the plumber's fault - you know, the guy who votes labour every election and couldn't care less about what's happening outside his borders, much like Africa and India's native population back in the day?

 

[CataclysmZA]

And how is Joe Bloggs the plumber's fault - you know, the guy who votes labour every election and couldn't care less about what's happening outside his borders, much like Africa and India's native population back in the day?

I don't suggest that every citizen of Great Britain is responsible for the status quo, but to some degree, many of them continue to enforce the use of English in trade either intentionally or subliminally. Joe Bloggs might not do it consciously, but he might only purchase plumbing supplies from companies whose owners speak English well, for example, avoiding business with other business owners that aren't Britons who don't speak English well.

That's not to say he should be forced to - if he's happy with the product his current partner supplies, there's no need to make a change - but that re-enforces an element of British colonialism that used to exist, in that you only did business with someone who spoke English and not their native language.

 

[Willie Trombone]

I don't suggest that every citizen of Great Britain is responsible for the status quo, but to some degree, many of them continue to enforce the use of English in trade either intentionally or subliminally. Joe Bloggs might not do it consciously, but he might only purchase plumbing supplies from companies whose owners speak English well, for example, avoiding business with other business owners that aren't Britons who don't speak English well.

No kidding - why would you think that is?

That's not to say he should be forced to - if he's happy with the product his current partner supplies, there's no need to make a change - but that re-enforces an element of British colonialism that used to exist, in that you only did business with someone who spoke English and not their native language.

What are you going to do about that anyway? You can't advocate for free trade, then tell people they're evil for trading as they please. At some point, Joe is going to get his product from Hasim if he gets better value - especially if John wants to succeed at business. It's those who are against those principles and operate on pure greed that are the issue, not Joe.

And what if you couldn't care less for anyone else learning your language and culture - and quite the opposite, prefer that they don't - like, say, China? How sure are you that the spread of western living is wholly a product people wanting to enforce their culture and language rather than plain old western philanthropy?

And don't try tell me that there is one nation or 'ism produces blameless individuals. If there's one thing we all have in common, it's that none of us is blameless.

What's your take on Florence Nightingale, Marie Curie or Mother Theresa? Responsible for the evils of western colonialism or not?

 

[Solarion]

Question for y'all - do you think all English (past and present) are responsible for all the elements of English colonialism worldwide?

Well there is the Spanish, Dutch, Italians, Germans and Portuguese who did a fair amount of colonizing.

 

[C4Cat]

The great irony is that Maimane was speaking purely with a political mouth. Being educated he probably knows that colonialism not only had positives but made everybody much better off but of course he can't say that.

....

I didn't say anything about being exploited. I want to know how they would have fared without any contact with outside non-African nations. If you don't want to answer or can't that's ok.

Here is an alternative opinion bases on actual research:
http://voxeu.org/article/colonialism-and-development-africa

Most of Africa spent two generations under colonial rule. This column argues that, contrary to some recent commentaries highlighting the benefits of colonialism, it is this intense experience that has significantly retarded economic development across the continent. Relative to any plausible counterfactual, Africa is poorer today than it would have been had colonialism not occurred.

Africans were able to reap the benefits of the introduction of railways and mining technology. Furthermore, being colonised meant deeper integration into world trade. Yet, how much of this is due to colonialism and how much of it would have happened anyway, in the wake of trade expansion is unclear.

The fact that we see living standards increase on average does not imply that everybody’s living standards increased.
For instance, in southern Africa the immiserising impact of land expropriation and the creation of ‘dual economies’ (Palmer and Parsons 1977) on incomes suggests that Africans experienced a severe deterioration in living standards as the consequence of colonialism. So we might observe formal sector wages going up while the vast majority of the population, cut off from the formal sector, sees its purchasing power deteriorate.

Evaluating the impact of colonialism involves not just looking at the raw numbers but considering the counterfactual. We have to think about what the trajectories of African societies would have been in the absence of colonialism.
For example, would the type of immiserisation of Africans in South Africa have happened if the Zulu state had taken over the Rand and developed the gold mining industry? If the Europeans brought technology or institutions, absent colonialism Africans could have adopted or innovated these themselves. In addition, any of this data has to be seen in the context of existing trends and international comparisons. It seems plausible that even without colonisation missionaries would have expanded education and the WHO would have brought medical technology, for instance1.

All in all, it is difficult to bring the available evidence together with plausible counterfactuals to argue that there is any country today in Sub-Saharan Africa that is more developed because it was colonised by Europeans. Quite the contrary.

And this:

Contrary to the views of some, colonialism left Africa worse off than it would have been without foreign subjugation, Prof James Robinson of Harvard University told delegates to the 16th World Economic History Congress (WEHC 2012) in Stellenbosch earlier this week (9 July 2012).

http://blogs.sun.ac.za/news/2012/07/13/colonialism-did-africa-more-harm-than-good/

 

[Moosedrool]

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.

You do know Nelson Mandela was a terrorist right? Part of planning and supporting the repeated strategically orginized bombings since 1982. 3 innocent people died in a car bombing in 1986. He had the chance to come out of jail in 1985 if he repudiate the attacks but didn't.

An actual law abiding citizen case... lol

 

[Willie Trombone]

Well there is the Spanish, Dutch, Italians, Germans and Portuguese who did a fair amount of colonizing.

Insert your fav colonists. I was using one purely for illustration.

 

[RyanPCMR]

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

 

[Willie Trombone]

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

That's like suggesting atheist fundamentalists acknowledge that they benefited from the Protestant work ethic philosophy.

 

[nightjar]

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

Those 139 characters are a shocking indictment of the lack of comprehension skills displayed by the vociferous complainers and should be enough to fail a standard 6 pupil.

 

[CataclysmZA]

What are you going to do about that anyway? You can't advocate for free trade, then tell people they're evil for trading as they please. At some point, Joe is going to get his product from Hasim if he gets better value - especially if John wants to succeed at business. It's those who are against those principles and operate on pure greed that are the issue, not Joe.

I'm all for free trade across continents and cultures (as in, you're free to partner and do business with whomever you please). The only limitations I place on the support of this idea is doing business with countries or corporations which have less-than-stellar human rights track records, or business deals which end up end up generally corrupt. Free trade, like free speech, has its limitations in order to make sure that no-one unfairly benefits at the expense of others.

Just this topic alone is a quagmire, so I can't be black-or-white about the whole situation. I state the above with conviction, but I own a pair of Nike sandals and two pairs of Nike shoes. My cellphone's processor, designed by Qualcomm, is manufactured in Taiwan. My keyboard and mouse, and second display are made in Chinese factories, and the display scalers are made by Foxconn. Much of the aluminium in the products I have at home comes from countries that are not conflict free.

Does that make me a hypocrite? I suppose so. Avoiding this trap is remarkably difficult.

And what if you couldn't care less for anyone else learning your language and culture - and quite the opposite, prefer that they don't - like, say, China? How sure are you that the spread of western living is wholly a product people wanting to enforce their culture and language rather than plain old western philanthropy?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking me here. The way the question is phrased confuses me. However, in the case of Great Britain, the ultimate goal to colonise for power came after the idea of colonising lands for Britain's benefit, like resupply stations, or scientific, historical, or geographic discovery. They didn't want to assimilate other cultures into their fold, they wanted to wipe them out slowly, replacing them with British culture. Britain saw itself as superior to the countries they colonised or conquered.

No nation which colonised another did so out of charity. There was always something to gain from it.

What's your take on Florence Nightingale, Marie Curie or Mother Theresa? Responsible for the evils of western colonialism or not?

I'm not sure on all three, to be honest. I haven't spent much time researching Nightingale or Theresa beyond what I learned in history class, although I went a bit more into Curie's discoveries because much of her research affected the modern computer and technology in general, and she was a brave, brave woman working in an industry where men didn't take female scientists seriously, or at all in some cases. Without her valuable work, every single STEM field would be worse off.

 

[Grant]

i find it curious that moeletsi mbeki has said almost the same, but going a step further by stating in many instances africans were better off under colonial rule - but no hysteria around his comments.

more interestingly, why is it that africa for some reason is beset by problems blamed on colonial rule, however non african nations are thriving post colonial rule

 

[rietrot]

You do know Nelson Mandela was a terrorist right? Part of planning and supporting the repeated strategically orginized bombings since 1982. 3 innocent people died in a car bombing in 1986. He had the chance to come out of jail in 1985 if he repudiate the attacks but didn't.

An actual law abiding citizen case... lol

No good came from Nelson Mandela the terrorist in 1980's. Any good that can be attributed to him happen after he stopped being a terrorist.

 

[Swa]

And how is Joe Bloggs the plumber's fault - you know, the guy who votes labour every election and couldn't care less about what's happening outside his borders, much like Africa and India's native population back in the day?

I blame this on America. Most of the world trade with them so English became the dominant trade language for everybody that doesn't have a common language. You just have to look at the English used and manner in which it is spoken, in most instances it's American and not British.

Here is an alternative opinion bases on actual research:
http://voxeu.org/article/colonialism-and-development-africa




And this:

http://blogs.sun.ac.za/news/2012/07/13/colonialism-did-africa-more-harm-than-good/

Alternative facts popping up their head again. Doesn't take into account where they were before colonialism. Also many African countries were never colonised and are still a monumental failure with people dying of famine. Others that were are now falling apart after the colonial overlords left. Your overlords want a socialist society but that is a product of Western democracy and colonialism. The very fact you are having this discussion instead of herding cattle is because of colonialism.

 

[Swa]

i find it curious that moeletsi mbeki has said almost the same, but going a step further by stating in many instances africans were better off under colonial rule - but no hysteria around his comments.

more interestingly, why is it that africa for some reason is beset by problems blamed on colonial rule, however non african nations are thriving post colonial rule

Same as when black leaders said rape by blacks is a cultural phenomenon. Not a peep until a white judge said the same. It's this double standard thing.

Not all of Africa, just a subset. North Africa seems better off because of constant British and Nordic influence. Even Egypt advanced under colonial rule. Afrikaners set up thriving institutions under British oppression. It's only the Bantu nations that are unable to thrive with or without colonialism.

 

[C4Cat]

I blame this on America. Most of the world trade with them so English became the dominant trade language for everybody that doesn't have a common language. You just have to look at the English used and manner in which it is spoken, in most instances it's American and not British.


Alternative facts popping up their head again. Doesn't take into account where they were before colonialism. Also many African countries were never colonised and are still a monumental failure with people dying of famine. Others that were are now falling apart after the colonial overlords left. Your overlords want a socialist society but that is a product of Western democracy and colonialism. The very fact you are having this discussion instead of herding cattle is because of colonialism.

Absolute nonsense. But ok, I'm sure an anonymous teen going by the name Swa on mybb is far more informed than a harvard university professor. Swa, who doesn't know what a fact is This is not alternative facts, it's all pure speculation but some people speculate based on a deeper understanding of historical forces and geographical and economic realities while others, like Swa just make up **** to support their bigotry.

 

[yebocan]

Editorial: How 'Spur man' and Zille are alike

Colonialism, as experienced by us, was not about water, healthcare and universities. Colonialism is about one people exerting power over another.

It is colonialism that has established a world in which the thoughts, feelings and experiences of a white man are treated as superior to all else. It is colonialism that has rendered the humanity of black people debatable. And it is colonialism that ultimately brings us to a restaurant, its patrons and staff looking on while a white man physically attacks a black woman.

In Zille we have an example of a white South African who refuses to acknowledge the experiential legacies of institutionalised racism, a white South African who believes her views, and her experience of the world, is the only lens through which the world must be seen and felt. Zille’s views do not exist in a vacuum. They emerge from a systemic process of negating the experiences of those who actually experience the effects of colonialism. Clearly the vision of Singapore’s nice, clean streets and piped water, about which Zille wrote enthusiastically, blinded her to the reality of South Africa and its history.

https://mg.co.za/article/2017-03-24-00-editorial-how-spur-man-and-zille-are-alike

 

[dunkyd]

36 pages of crap.......