• You are losing out on amazing benefits because you are not a member. Join for free. Register now.
  • Big Two-Day Giveaway - Win an Amazon Kindle, a Mystery Gadget and Branded Gear. Enter Here.
  • Test your broadband speed and win prizes worth R5,000. Enter here.

Colonialism wasn't all bad‚ says Helen Zille

Temujin

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
3,570
This whole argument is stupid because there is no 'truth' or 'fact' when it comes down to issues of definition.
The 'truth' depends on how you define colonialism - if you define it (as I do) as the oppressive exploitation of indigenous people and their resources, then there are no positives. If you define it, as Zille presumably does, as simply the migration of Europeans into Africa (which just happened to be exploitative) then it brought with it positives. Definitions are not true or false, they are simply the meanings we assign to words and often we disagree on them but there is no point arguing about it since there is no right or wrong definition - people simply have to come to some agreement on the definition to move the argument forward.

In this case Zille made a statement that was divisive and provocative and she did it knowingly because she believes her definition is the one and only true definition. That's the problem and why I have an issue with it. She could have phrased it in a way that wasn't confrontational, like using just using the words Europeans instead of colonialism. Nobody can reasonably argue against the fact that there were positives from Europeans coming to Africa but the idea that there were positives from the oppression and exploitation of indigenous people (i.e. colonialism) is bound to cause hurt and resentment. Zille needs to come down of her high horse and for goodness sake, stop making American leaders her role models. When Obama was in power she (and the DA) copied him, with their slogans and branding and marketing, and now she copies Trump with her confrontational tweets which she mistakenly and misguidedly thinks is 'telling it like it is' rather than just more Trump like provocation and BS.
You can define it as potato for all I care, your definition is wrong. The definition is

colonialism
kəˈləʊnɪəlɪz(ə)m/
noun
noun: colonialism

the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.

You can't 'oppressive exploitation of indigenous people and their resources' without taking control of the area/state/whatever, bringing the knowledge, tech, resources, manpower, infrastructure to do it.

oppression and exploitation of indigenous people (i.e. colonialism)
'oppression and exploitation' is not colonialism, its oppression and exploitation. Colonialism brought with it all the other **** that made it 'colonialism', which includes the 'oppression and exploitation'

Edit: infact, using your 'definition', every chief/king of local tribes was guilty of colonialism to their own people;)
 
Last edited:

Solarion

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
17,099
South Africa is different in that, SA is one of the few ex colonies that is actually content to bitch and whinge all day bout colonialism yet all too happy to bask in the benefits it produced.

South Africa by nature is a country that will argue to do things her own way then will go on to do the very things suggested to her.
 

access

Executive Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
6,957
This whole argument is stupid because there is no 'truth' or 'fact' when it comes down to issues of definition.
The 'truth' depends on how you define colonialism - if you define it (as I do) as the oppressive exploitation of indigenous people and their resources, then there are no positives. If you define it, as Zille presumably does, as simply the migration of Europeans into Africa (which just happened to be exploitative) then it brought with it positives. Definitions are not true or false, they are simply the meanings we assign to words and often we disagree on them but there is no point arguing about it since there is no right or wrong definition - people simply have to come to some agreement on the definition to move the argument forward.

In this case Zille made a statement that was divisive and provocative and she did it knowingly because she believes her definition is the one and only true definition. That's the problem and why I have an issue with it. She could have phrased it in a way that wasn't confrontational, like using just using the words Europeans instead of colonialism. Nobody can reasonably argue against the fact that there were positives from Europeans coming to Africa but the idea that there were positives from the oppression and exploitation of indigenous people (i.e. colonialism) is bound to cause hurt and resentment. Zille needs to come down of her high horse and for goodness sake, stop making American leaders her role models. When Obama was in power she (and the DA) copied him, with their slogans and branding and marketing, and now she copies Trump with her confrontational tweets which she mistakenly and misguidedly thinks is 'telling it like it is' rather than just more Trump like provocation and BS.
dont you think your definition is a bit off?

"oppressive exploitation of indigenous people and their resources" is one of many results of what happened.

for example, the europeans did not come here to oppress and exploit the indigenous people and there resources. it was not the intent.

this was an alternative spice trade route, a quickstop for ships. other routes east like the silk road(from mongol colonisation) became too hazardous.

the generally accepted moral standard of people in the past is far less than it is today. it was deemed perfectly normal to do things to another human being or there corpse which are completely unacceptable/heinous today.
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2017
Messages
763
you ignoring the reality of the people here still in hunter gatherer phase. nothing had happened here for thousands of years, it would not have happened all of a sudden. the rest of the world was using gun powder and horse and carriage and ships, had businesses and government and individualism. these things were all available and there during that time, but southern africa was not using it. why would it change all of a sudden.

those other countries you try and compare southern africa to were far developed themselves, nothing like that existed here. china was ruled by britian for over 150 years too btw.

the historic empires colonised where ever they went. they applied their technology where ever they went.

if the ships simply sailed past the southern african coast line, the tribes would still be living in huts with leather loincloth clothing today. some people still do. pointing to northern africa as a counter argument is futile since they were ruled by another empire too

and just because one group of people moved over land and could not fathom the idea of moving across the water, does not make them better than the people that crossed water. both plundered and pillaged. the one was just far less advanced than the other, therefor weaker and overrun.

how many years do you think it is reasonable for a hunter gatherer society to truly embrace and catch up to a modern one. keep in mind there are forces working against this, culture, habits, beliefs, superstition, xenophobia, racism.
To be honest, I don't care what anyone believes wrt Africans catching up to the first world ito technology. There is no way to prove any of it, it is all speculation. It is a fact that they were behind in 1652. There's no denying that.
Although, to say that they would never have caught up to the point where they have running water, electricity, roads etc (even in some parts) is racist. It implies that they could never do what the rest of the world could do. Even if you believe it is true, you have to see how black people would be offended by it.
 

access

Executive Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
6,957
To be honest, I don't care what anyone believes wrt Africans catching up to the first world ito technology. There is no way to prove any of it, it is all speculation. It is a fact that they were behind in 1652. There's no denying that.
Although, to say that they would never have caught up to the point where they have running water, electricity, roads etc (even in some parts) is racist. It implies that they could never do what the rest of the world could do. Even if you believe it is true, you have to see how black people would be offended by it.
where do you come with racist? is this all you see? careful not to become it.

every civilisation/society on this planet fought with and conquered another. the one with the better things(their things are better therefor/because they won!) put it in place over the other. it then incorporated the things of the conquered to get even better, until it met another who is more advanced, then the same happened to it. there is no speculating this.

there were already roads with street lamps and water pipes etc. in the world that time already. when were people here going to decide to catch up if they had not done that already then.

if you leave a normal human hunter gatherer society alone completely, how long will it take for it to invent "running water, electricity, roads etc"? 366 years or thousands of years.?
 

BBSA

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
9,409
So the fact that our Zulu and Xhosa brothers and sisters came from the north and colinised our country had no benefits at all?
 

Temujin

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
3,570
So the fact that our Zulu and Xhosa brothers and sisters came from the north and colinised our country had no benefits at all?
No, when they arrived it was all beneficial to the locals, only positives to be had, its when they themselves were colonised, thats when it was only negative:whistling:
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2017
Messages
763
where do you come with racist? is this all you see? careful not to become it.

every civilisation/society on this planet fought with and conquered another. the one with the better things(their things are better therefor/because they won!) put it in place over the other. it then incorporated the things of the conquered to get even better, until it met another who is more advanced, then the same happened to it. there is no speculating this.

there were already roads with street lamps and water pipes etc. in the world that time already. when were people here going to decide to catch up if they had not done that already then.

if you leave a normal human hunter gatherer society alone completely, how long will it take for it to invent "running water, electricity, roads etc"? 366 years or thousands of years.?
Not in isolation. With trade etc. There was already trade in the Cape.

And what would you call the belief that a race of people NEEDED to be colonised before they would move out of mud huts? Who without someone ruling over them, would not trade with and learn from the other peoples they meet like every other nation on earth did at one stage or another?

As I said, I don't really care if they would have been on the same level as we are now if Africa hadn't been colonised. But I can't fathom how someone would say: "You should thank us for subjugating your people, because without our subjugation it would have been impossible for you to get (by trade, etc) any of these things humanity developed over the last 200 years." and think that it won't be taken as an insult.

It is a silly debate though. That is not how the world works or worked. The strong took from the weak. It happened everywhere and it is naive to think that in the absence of the white man it didn't and wouldn't have happened in Africa.
 
Last edited:

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
15,972
This whole argument is stupid because there is no 'truth' or 'fact' when it comes down to issues of definition.
The 'truth' depends on how you define colonialism - if you define it (as I do) as the oppressive exploitation of indigenous people and their resources, then there are no positives. If you define it, as Zille presumably does, as simply the migration of Europeans into Africa (which just happened to be exploitative) then it brought with it positives. Definitions are not true or false, they are simply the meanings we assign to words and often we disagree on them but there is no point arguing about it since there is no right or wrong definition - people simply have to come to some agreement on the definition to move the argument forward.

In this case Zille made a statement that was divisive and provocative and she did it knowingly because she believes her definition is the one and only true definition. That's the problem and why I have an issue with it. She could have phrased it in a way that wasn't confrontational, like using just using the words Europeans instead of colonialism. Nobody can reasonably argue against the fact that there were positives from Europeans coming to Africa but the idea that there were positives from the oppression and exploitation of indigenous people (i.e. colonialism) is bound to cause hurt and resentment. Zille needs to come down of her high horse and for goodness sake, stop making American leaders her role models. When Obama was in power she (and the DA) copied him, with their slogans and branding and marketing, and now she copies Trump with her confrontational tweets which she mistakenly and misguidedly thinks is 'telling it like it is' rather than just more Trump like provocation and BS.
So now it's a matter of how you define it? LOL. No it doesn't work that way. Facts are facts and the facts are that you have all of this infrastructure because it happened. You can define it however you like but it won't change that fact.

To be honest, I don't care what anyone believes wrt Africans catching up to the first world ito technology. There is no way to prove any of it, it is all speculation. It is a fact that they were behind in 1652. There's no denying that.
Although, to say that they would never have caught up to the point where they have running water, electricity, roads etc (even in some parts) is racist. It implies that they could never do what the rest of the world could do. Even if you believe it is true, you have to see how black people would be offended by it.
It's not racist. You merely have to look at history to see the pattern. It takes thousands of years for people to develop. Just look at the period of development termed the so-called dark ages and before that. The only times people have developed quite rapidly is when they come in contact with another civilisation and usually for colonisation. Sure we can't say definitely they would still be living in mud huts but we know they would not have what they have today.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
15,972
Not in isolation. With trade etc. There was already trade in the Cape.
Not without colonialism. You keep ignoring that.

And what would you call the belief that a race of people NEEDED to be colonised before they would move out of mud huts? Who without someone ruling over them, would not trade with and learn from the other peoples they meet like every other nation on earth did at one stage or another?
Not racism. Nobody said it's because of race and colonisation is indeed something that happened to all races at some point with the same result.

As I said, I don't really care if they would have been on the same level as we are now if Africa hadn't been colonised. But I can't fathom how someone would say: "You should thank us for subjugating your people, because without our subjugation it would have been impossible for you to get (by trade, etc) any of these things humanity developed over the last 200 years." and think that it won't be taken as an insult.
Well you should care. As I said many times already how is it we can see the benefits it brought us yet our ancestors were the most affected by it. The only insults here are the ones people assign themselves.

It is a silly debate though. That is not how the world works or worked. The strong took from the weak. It happened everywhere and it is naive to think that in the absence of the white man it didn't and wouldn't have happened in Africa.
But it's exactly how the world works. It happened in Africa before the white man arrived but it only became wrong somehow when it was done by the white man. Judged by the standards of the white man no less.
 

Spizz

Goat Botherer
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
21,258
Naive to think the majority South Africans would understand the point she was making, yes sure.... but a hypocrite?
She's white, she can and will be accused of everything.

But look at this thread, absolutely NOTHING to back up any of the accusations when pressed. It's the new South Africa.
 

Knyro

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 5, 2010
Messages
26,626
Naive to think the majority South Africans would understand the point she was making, yes sure.... but a hypocrite?
As I've pointed out many times before. She refuses to acknowledge any positives brought about by the Nazis, but expects others to acknowledge those brought about by colonialism.
 
Top