Colonialism wasn't all bad‚ says Helen Zille

[Patrick_Hockstetter]

Yes, let's forget history. :erm:

No. But blame the long dead colonizers.

 

[Garson007]

I agree. But what is done is done.

But then stop trying to defend colonization. :erm:

 

[Knyro]

Shrug.

Why should I wait for appreciation? I didn't colonize anyone.

I agree. But what is done is done.

Colonialism brought the written word to the South African people's among many other benefits.

Although I don't doubt for a minute that the people here would have developed the written word and all the other benefits of colonisation over time. Should they not at least show appreciation for getting a hand up?

At least try to remember your own posts.

 

[Patrick_Hockstetter]

But then stop trying to defend colonization. :erm:

I'm not defending colonization...

Just saying there were negatives and positives to it.

I have no dog in the hunt here.

 

[Patrick_Hockstetter]

At least try to remember your own posts.

I do.

Trying to figure out what you are trying to say here.

 

[Garson007]

I'm not defending colonization...

Just saying there were negatives and positives to it.

I have no dog in the hunt here.

Why force the narrative that colonialism had positives? It's ignorant and stupid.

 

[konfab]

Japan has all that and they were never colonised.

Hmm, almost as if colonisation is in fact, not a pre-requisite for the spread of knowledge.

Written language is what I would deem the prerequisite for the spread of knowledge. The Japs had it in the 500s. The Chinese had it before then.

Sub-Saharan Africa simply didn't have it, and it was missionary work(which is a form of colonialism) that brought it here.

 

[Knyro]

Written language is what I would deem the prerequisite for the spread of knowledge. The Japs had it in the 500s. The Chinese had it before then.

Sub-Saharan Africa simply didn't have it, and it was missionary work(which is a form of colonialism) that brought it here.

The Japanese got written language from the Chinese, without colonialism.

They got Western knowlege from Europeans, without colonialsm.

Colonialsm is not a necessary factor for the spread of knowledge. What's so hard to understand about this?

 

[C4Cat]

The Japanese got if from the Chinese, without colonialism.

They got Western knowlege from Europeans, without colonialsm.

Colonialsm is not a necessary factor for the spread of knowledge. What's so hard to understand about this?

The West got vast amounts of knowledge and technology from China and the Middle East too.

 

[Fulcrum29]

The Japs had it in the 500s.

Interesting term used in a thread where colonialism is discussed...

 

[Knyro]

The West got vast amounts of knowledge and technology from China too.

Indeed.

 

[Knyro]

Interesting term used in a thread where colonialism is discussed...

Try not to expect too much from these apologists. One step at a time.

 

[Garson007]

Sub-Saharan Africa simply didn't have it, and it was missionary work(which is a form of colonialism) that brought it here.

I wouldn't conflate missionary work with colonialism. You can have the one without the other.

 

[Patrick_Hockstetter]

Why force the narrative that colonization had positives? It's ignorant and stupid.

I'm not forcing anything. I thought we were having a civil debate

 

[C4Cat]

I wouldn't conflate missionary work with colonialism. You can have the one without the other.

This is the point. Missionary work could still have taken place in the absence of colonialism, as it did in many other parts of the world. Colonialism was not necessary for the spreading of knowledge and may even have hampered it and made it more difficult.

 

[Moosedrool]

The Japanese got written language from the Chinese, without colonialism.

They got Western knowlege from Europeans, without colonialsm.

Colonialsm is not a necessary factor for the spread of knowledge. What's so hard to understand about this?

No it's not. It is the worst way to do it. But it did spread the knowladge, infustracture and business oppertunities.

 

[konfab]

Why force the narrative that colonization had positives? It's ignorant and stupid.

Because that is the evidence.

How many people would say the Roman occupation of Europe didn't have any positives? Look at all those evil aqueducts, bridges and roads that Europe simply didn't have before those racist Romans took over the running of things.

 

[Knyro]

No it's not. It is the worst way to do it. But it did spread the knowladge, infustracture and business oppertunities.

Along with horrible experiences for the colonised that still affect their descendants negatively to this day. Which is why expecting them to be grateful is foolishness and counter-productive to building a unified South Africa.

 

[Garson007]

Because that is the evidence.

It simply isn't. The evidence doesn't rest in the infrastructure. The evidence rests in the heart and soul of the people that live here and in their shared history.

 

[konfab]

This is the point. Missionary work could still have taken place in the absence of colonialism, as it did in many other parts of the world. Colonialism was not necessary for the spreading of knowledge and may even have hampered it and made it more difficult.

Who were the ones who set up the trading post that would eventually become Cape Town. Missionaries or Colonialists? Missionary work only existed in South Africa because of the routes that colonialism opened up.