European Colonialism - Good or Bad?

[Dr Grump]

I'm thinking - overall - good. Kinda depends on the colonial power too IMO.

 

[Pogo]

Good for who though.

Overall I'd say miserably disastrous. Just ask the Arawak.
Or the Africans. Or the Irish. Or the Maori. Or the Indian subcontinent.

 

[Dr Grump]

Good for who though.

Overall I'd say miserably disastrous. Just ask the Arawak.
Or the Africans. Or the Irish. Or the Maori. Or the Indian subcontinent.

That is my initial thoughts, too. Of the big four, I think the English were the best colonialists. The French are next. The Spanish and Portuguese were hopeless. As for the minor players, the Belgians and the Dutch were pretty harsh. The Italians and Russians were hardly colonial powers at all. Same with the Germans.

However, I will say this. It's not as if the indigenous peoples, or in some cases first peoples, of a particular area were holding hands and skipping through the forest picking berries. The Aztecs and Mayans were very cruel to their own. As were Maori and Native Americans. The biggest slave traders on the African continent were arabs and other Africans.

Colonialism brought a lot of good things, too.

 

[Toro]

I'd say good overall but with bad in some parts, and horrific in others, i.e. the Congo.

 

[Pogo]

Good for who though.

Overall I'd say miserably disastrous. Just ask the Arawak.
Or the Africans. Or the Irish. Or the Maori. Or the Indian subcontinent.

That is my initial thoughts, too. Of the big four, I think the English were the best colonialists. The French are next. The Spanish and Portuguese were hopeless. As for the minor players, the Belgians and the Dutch were pretty harsh. The Italians and Russians were hardly colonial powers at all. Same with the Germans.

However, I will say this. It's not as if the indigenous peoples, or in some cases first peoples, of a particular area were holding hands and skipping through the forest picking berries. The Aztecs and Mayans were very cruel to their own. As were Maori and Native Americans. The biggest slave traders on the African continent were arabs and other Africans.

Colonialism brought a lot of good things, too.

I uh don't think you have those histories quite right. Particularly the über-broad brush with which you painted the entire body of hundreds, nay thousands, of native American tribes with tremendous diversities among them.

Also not sure what distinction you make between the Spanish/Portuguese versus the English/French. Ask the Acadians how nice the English were. Or the Irish.

Finally, when you mention "cruel to their own", you can't leave out stuff like witch burnings and (intra-European) slavery.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

Good for who though.

Overall I'd say miserably disastrous. Just ask the Arawak.
Or the Africans. Or the Irish. Or the Maori. Or the Indian subcontinent.

If it were not for the English none of those savages would have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of. Especially those cromags in Ireland.

 

[Pogo]

Good for who though.

Overall I'd say miserably disastrous. Just ask the Arawak.
Or the Africans. Or the Irish. Or the Maori. Or the Indian subcontinent.

If it were not for the English none of those savages would have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of. Especially those cromags in Ireland.

The Brits raped Ireland, literally and figuratively.

You're cordially invoited to go fook yerself.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

Good for who though.

Overall I'd say miserably disastrous. Just ask the Arawak.
Or the Africans. Or the Irish. Or the Maori. Or the Indian subcontinent.

If it were not for the English none of those savages would have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of. Especially those cromags in Ireland.

The Brits raped Ireland, literally and figuratively.

You're cordially invoited to go fook yerself.

Oh cry me a river o'green tears paddy. The British brought culture, rule of law and infrastructure to many across the globe. May God bless the British.

 

[Pogo]

Good for who though.

Overall I'd say miserably disastrous. Just ask the Arawak.
Or the Africans. Or the Irish. Or the Maori. Or the Indian subcontinent.

If it were not for the English none of those savages would have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of. Especially those cromags in Ireland.

The Brits raped Ireland, literally and figuratively.

You're cordially invoited to go fook yerself.

Oh cry me a river o'green tears paddy. The British brought culture, rule of law and infrastructure to many across the globe. May God bless the British.

Sure an' no one else wull. Foogin' wankers.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

Good for who though.

Overall I'd say miserably disastrous. Just ask the Arawak.
Or the Africans. Or the Irish. Or the Maori. Or the Indian subcontinent.

If it were not for the English none of those savages would have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of. Especially those cromags in Ireland.

The Brits raped Ireland, literally and figuratively.

You're cordially invoited to go fook yerself.

Oh cry me a river o'green tears paddy. The British brought culture, rule of law and infrastructure to many across the globe. May God bless the British.

Sure an' no one else wull. Foogin' wankers.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Good for who though.

Overall I'd say miserably disastrous. Just ask the Arawak.
Or the Africans. Or the Irish. Or the Maori. Or the Indian subcontinent.

That is my initial thoughts, too. Of the big four, I think the English were the best colonialists. The French are next. The Spanish and Portuguese were hopeless. As for the minor players, the Belgians and the Dutch were pretty harsh. The Italians and Russians were hardly colonial powers at all. Same with the Germans.

However, I will say this. It's not as if the indigenous peoples, or in some cases first peoples, of a particular area were holding hands and skipping through the forest picking berries. The Aztecs and Mayans were very cruel to their own. As were Maori and Native Americans. The biggest slave traders on the African continent were arabs and other Africans.

Colonialism brought a lot of good things, too.

You make great a very good point!

So I think conservatives should just let liberals take control and run your lives!

Let's face it; you people exhibit the intelligence and maturity of primitive savages!

and all you do is cause trouble and destroy things.

You resist positive change, you get mad all the time, you pout, you threaten violence.....

It would be better for everyone for more mature and responsible people to just take control and tell you how to live....

We could even provide some nice warm blankets.....

 

[Dr Grump]

[
I uh don't think you have those histories quite right. Particularly the über-broad brush with which you painted the entire body of hundreds, nay thousands, of native American tribes with tremendous diversities among them.

Also not sure what distinction you make between the Spanish/Portuguese versus the English/French. Ask the Acadians how nice the English were. Or the Irish.

Finally, when you mention "cruel to their own", you can't leave out stuff like witch burnings and (intra-European) slavery.

You're kinda doing the broad brush stroke thing the other way, too. I think all colonial powers did horrendous things.

Easy. Look at the state of the former British colonies today. USA, Canada, NZ, Australia, India- thriving democracies. You could argue that the best African countries with decent infrastructure and governance (to a degree) are South Africa, Kenya and Nigeria (although Zimbabwe and Uganda negates that argument too). All the Spanish and Portuguese holdings ended up being third-word shitholes or tinpot dictatorships. James Mitchener had a theory about that, and I agree to a degree.

 

[Litwin]

I'm thinking - overall - good. Kinda depends on the colonial power too IMO.

how the huge step (jump) forward can be "bad"? from stone - age to global capitalism

 

[TNHarley]

Im glad it happened. I would fucking hate to be a brit

 

[TNHarley]

The indians were in a constant state of war over land. Please, spare us the "poor indians" bullshit.

 

[pismoe]

Good for who though.

Overall I'd say miserably disastrous. Just ask the Arawak.
Or the Africans. Or the Irish. Or the Maori. Or the Indian subcontinent.

-------------------------------- GOOD for the 'euro's' until they became wusses 50 or longer years ago and nowadays the 'euro's' are paying because of their wussiness Pogo .

 

[Pogo]

[
I uh don't think you have those histories quite right. Particularly the über-broad brush with which you painted the entire body of hundreds, nay thousands, of native American tribes with tremendous diversities among them.

Also not sure what distinction you make between the Spanish/Portuguese versus the English/French. Ask the Acadians how nice the English were. Or the Irish.

Finally, when you mention "cruel to their own", you can't leave out stuff like witch burnings and (intra-European) slavery.

You're kinda doing the broad brush stroke thing the other way, too. I think all colonial powers did horrendous things.

Easy. Look at the state of the former British colonies today. USA, Canada, NZ, Australia, India- thriving democracies. You could argue that the best African countries with decent infrastructure and governance (to a degree) are South Africa, Kenya and Nigeria (although Zimbabwe and Uganda negates that argument too). All the Spanish and Portuguese holdings ended up being third-word shitholes or tinpot dictatorships. James Mitchener had a theory about that, and I agree to a degree.

British colonies? You mean the way they carved up Persia and Iraq into random map freaks irrespective of their histories just to grease their oil channels and created the same kind of tensions France did in Syria?

As for the others, I dunno when you say Portuguese I just think of Brazil, which is hardly a "shithole", and then its Spanish-legacy neighbors like Uruguay and Argentina. And Chile and Ecuador. I'm not seeing your patterns.

 

[Pogo]

The indians were in a constant state of war over land. Please, spare us the "poor indians" bullshit.

Link to blanket stereotype?

Really? "The Indians" followed by ---- anything? That's like "The Asians were in a constant state of war over land".

Oh and it's capitalized. Proper noun. I guess that gaffe is consistent with the blanket ignance.
Posta please.

 

[TNHarley]

The indians were in a constant state of war over land. Please, spare us the "poor indians" bullshit.

Link to blanket stereotype?

Really? "The Indians" followed by ---- anything? That's like "The Asians were in a constant state of war over land".

Oh and it's capitalized. Proper noun. I guess that gaffe is consistent with the blanket ignance.
Posta please.

Lol your shtick is boring. Good day!

 

[Pogo]

The indians were in a constant state of war over land. Please, spare us the "poor indians" bullshit.

Link to blanket stereotype?

Really? "The Indians" followed by ---- anything? That's like "The Asians were in a constant state of war over land".

Oh and it's capitalized. Proper noun. I guess that gaffe is consistent with the blanket ignance.
Posta please.

Lol your shtick is boring. Good day!

I guess Stone Ignance is less 'boring' than knowledge.
Cult o' Ignance gurgles again. It's like Old Faithful.

Tough shit dood, there is no blanket statement you can make about an entire race just because you're too fucking lazy to find out about them.

Wait wait, don't tell me ---- they all spoke "Indian" too, amirite? Now tell us how many Mexicoes there are.

SMH