Colonialism and Imperialism

gedhab, has no valuable info. A lot was addressed and I'm glad for that. I think I can address it again with some more facts.

1. The USA is one of least, if not the least, of modern pollutants. We have allowed tons of agreements were we restrict our growth to help the Eco system and the huge polluters, China is the main one that comes to mind, still aren't targeted. It's silly to keep after the US and ignore the rest of the world. It shows the bias of were these come from, I think.

2. Human rights infringement my ass. I get so mad at the Red Cross for this. They were at Saddam's prisons and didn't speak out. Yet they made up accusations to try to do as much PR damage to America as possible and the media helps them. You know what the infringement was? Holding prisoners for an indefinite amount of time because that was "stressful". Like being in a prisoner is not stressful. Do we need to serve them drinks too? How about a waiter for them? This is what really makes me mad. Some how, we violated medical "ethics" by checking to see if the prisoners were well enough to be interrogated. This was an act of kindness, to make sure none of them go crazy and they want to hang us for it. Red Cross. Anti American and nothing else.

3. I don't see why the death penalty so evil. (being from Texas doesn't help that, though ) Some crimes are very evil. Like murdering 50,000 people. When did all the sympathy go from our noncombatants to terrorist "noncombatants"?

I can't remember what else he said anymore.
 
LOL. Global warming is a crap science. There is far too much guess work to make it at all reliable. To give you an idea, some scientist believe that we are verging on an ice age and need to glabal warm to prevent it. The only scientist that believe it are the ones who work on it and want some recognition for it.

Edit: Sorry Kwaj
 
I'm going to throw in my two penn'orth because this thread is irritating the hell out of me. (Am I allowed to say "hell" by the way?)

gedhab started by proposing a discussion of imperialism and it's effects. But no has talked about that at all. Including gedhab. In fact all he has done is lay into the USA, which I suspect may just have been his intention all along.

The topic he originally proposed might have been an interesting one, but the way the thread has turned out is not.

I may have certain things I dislike about the USA, but there are things I dislike about lots of countries, including my own. If the subject crops up then I may air some of my dislikes, but only in the context of the discussion. And I will attempt to do so in a civil manner. Launching a general attack on a particuler country like this simply puts peoples' backs up and achieves nothing. The thread just becomes a slanging match.

My suggestion to gedhab is that if there is a specific issue about the USA (or any other country for that matter) which you feel strongly about then bring up that issue on its own, and try do do so in a less confrontational manner. That way it will actually get debated, rather than the whole thread just going down in flames.
 
You have to admit, as far as colonialism and imperialism are concerned, England is one of the greater players in that context. "The sun doesn't set on the English EMPIRE" and all that.
Yes, many horrid things occured during colonialism and imperialism, from all nations involved. Just take a look at the Spanish conquests. But you have to look at it in the contest in which it arose.
At the time, this was standard practice for countries and the American empire was quite small in comparison. Did it leave lasting effects? Yes. Are some of them negative? Yes.
 
If I may just correct a couple of small points? It was the British Empire, not English.

And the American Empire? Never heard of that one. (I believe the term 'neo-colonialism' is used in reference to the USA.)

I agree with the main thrust of your argument, but I would say that all the lasting effects of colonialism are bad.
 
You are of course, correct. Forgive my bad semantics.

All? Really? All?
Suiz canal? Bad? Panama canal? Bad? Not to mention the studies into many forms of tropical diseases, an area of study that was driven by imperialism. Which to this day, many benefit from.

That's a mighty big brush you have to pain with. And there is nothing that is all good or all bad, period.
 
"LOL. Global warming is a crap science. There is far too much guess work to make it at all reliable. To give you an idea, some scientist believe that we are verging on an ice age and need to glabal warm to prevent it. The only scientist that believe it are the ones who work on it and want some recognition for it."

Maybe some scientists believe global warming is caused by giant albino space hamsters from the planet Kraglon 5. However, there is a strong consensus among the scientific community (e.g. the IPCC) that global warming is occuring due to the changing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and there is much evidence that supports this theory. It's also true that we are due a perfectly naturally occuring glacial period or "ice age", but that isn't going to happen for quite some time, and whether natural processes should be prevented by human activity is another topic for debate.

I realise this post has gone off-topic, so if you want to debate this further, feel free to PM me. I look forward to you explaining to me in what ways you measured the unreliability of the crap science of global warming.
 
That is to make the assumption that the Suez Canal (to use that particular example) would not have been constructed if it weren't for British and French Imperialism. But if Egypt had been independant then the canal would still have been built, with the help of overseas investment and expertise if necessary. If the economic rationale exists then things get built. It happens all the time.

I accept your point about my big brush. I oversimplified things. If I may be allowed to rephrase my statement, then I think that Imperialism was generally a very bad thing. The negatives greatly outweighed the positives, and the price is still being paid.
 
The British were indeed the biggest colonials and imperialists. I think their biggest crime is creating false borders, thereby seperating people of the same ethnic group/tribe...now we can see problems becase of this.

Many political problems in countries can be seen as a direct result of British intervention.

American's are modern day colonials in all but name. They have troops in various regions of the world as well as intelligence and military bases.
 
I don't presume to state that it would have never happened if not for imperialism, just that England's imperial interests were what fueled the construction of the canal. Same with malarial research or research in any number of tropical studies. Not to mention Darwin and Wallace. Both of them had access to their studied populations because of imperialism. But the thing of it is, can you really judge a historical attitude based upon modern conceptions?

We do have bases around the world. We also basically pay rent for them. This also goes for the bases stateside. Nor do those bases directly interfer with any peaceful local or federal governments. Oh and most of the recent ocupations have been at the behest of the governments in question. Hardly a colonial effort as we aren't exporting American families into other countries to make an American colony by with America can profit financially.
 
Er don't most Western counteries have military bases all over the place? How many countiries are the UN currently in performing peace keeping duties? Don't most places with US bases welcome the fact that there there?

How can that be colonialism?

As for the earlier American bashing, why can't peaple get it right, what most of 'us' in Europe hate is the Bush administration not the US, that still leaves almost half of all Americans who feel similar to us!
 
I agree with the last paragraph you wrote mate. In my first post, i mentioned American and european powers (e.g. the administration) and was not refferring to the average american.
 
last reply to off topic, I promise
Basicly, I think it is crap because half of scientist laugh at it and the other half never aggrees on anything. I admit I can't post any souces, but this has been the theme with every one I talk to that knows about it. The media seems to pick it up because its sensational, so the crazy fears become wide spread.

Another interesting thing. Scientist are now aggreeing any thoughts of us having a significant impact on the envirement is in vain. Mt sainthelens produces more co2 than all the factories in Washington combined. A terrmite mound in Africa produces more CO2 than all the cars in New York City combined (at least that was true aroun '99). And that year that a ton of the rain forest was torn down, Europe noticed an explosion in their foleage

On topic
I don't think the majority of the US cares what Europe thinks because thay hated Reagan too, and now they like him.
 
Yes, the British were the biggest imperialists, but they were'nt the only ones. All the colonial powers created false borders, which as you say are the cause of enormous problems today. Take Africa as a prime example of this. (And bear in mind that France ruled at least as much of Africa as Britain did, if not more.)

I don't think it is accurate to describe the USA as colonials, since they don't have colonies. I have heard the term 'neo-imperialism' used in reference to the USA. I think the concept is that rather than ruling directly through conquest and colonisation, the USA (and others too - I don't think the term is used exclusively to the USA) use their military and economic power to influence and control events in other countries, ensuring the global dominance of their own political agenda and economic interests. Not quite so straightforward as traditional imperialism! I suppose it is something which grew out of the cold war, although the roots lie in things like the Monroe Doctrine, which stated that the USA reserved the right to basically interfere in any country within it's own self-defined sphere of influence if it didn't like what that country was doing. For example, the USA has overthrown quite a number of governments in Central and South America because they didn't like their policies. That is an example of neo-imperialism.

An example of British neo-imperialism would be our part in the Suez invasion.
Some might say our part in the invasion of Iraq. (That's a thorny one!)
 
were they? i would say that they were the most famous imperialists, and possiblythe most successful economically, but the "biggest" im not so sure about. was the roman empire not bigger in land mass? what about the ottoman empire? these are serious questions btw as i dont actually know the dutch and germans also had african colony's, the spanish aquired most of south america, and parts of north america too. what about the USSR?
 
In terms of land mass, the British Empire was the biggest in history I believe. Included nearly half of Africa, India, Australia, New Zealand, Canada (which is vast on it's own) and assorted bits and pieces round the world.

Rome basically ruled southern and central Europe, North Africa and the near East. It was much smaller than the Greek empire had been under Alexander the Great, but collapsed rapidly after he died. Persia had a huge empire.

The Ottoman Empire was pretty big at it's zenith, but nowhere near as big as the British Empire.

Spain and Portugal both had big Empires. So did France. Holland had a few colonies but they were all quite small. Germany grabbed a few chunks of Africa, but lost them in WW1. Italy ruled a big chunk of NE Africa during the Fascist years.

Russia's empire was pretty large, but most of it was Russia itself! The USSR didn't have an empire. It was a federation of republics, which had originally been conquered by Imperial Russia.

Don't forget China - it was always the Chinese Empire up to 1911.

And lets not forget Scotland. When they were still independant they established a colony in central America. But the settlers all died of malaria or starvation or something. Just thought I'd mention it.....
 
wasnt disagreeing with you as i honestly have no idea. just thinking about the french empire aswell- nearly half of africa, large parts of canada, southern and western USA (prior to the louisianna purchase). did the french have any other major colonies? i must admit im fascinated by empires, the notion of such as small island such as britain having control of such vast areas is beyond me. i believe, if i remember a rightly, the process of normification or normalification is largely put down as the reason for success of the british empire. historically speaking it is as follows. rather than gaining control by coercion, they set up trading posts and made the colonies beleive that it was in their own interests to be part of the empire.
 
Damn right there Raisen!

The British were smart and managed to play locals off against eachother, create divisions, and make them believe they were gaining something, when really they were loosing.
 
they may not gained as much as the british, but many regions gained riches that would have been incomprehensible without the trading posts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Farmers in Spain and Poland stage tractor protests over European Union policies and c
Replies
0
Views
52
admin
A
A
Russian Troops Have Entered Air Base Hosting U.S. Soldiers
Replies
0
Views
23
admin
A
A
Prince Albert Catholic Division preparing for Catholic Education Week
Replies
0
Views
12
admin
A
W
Swiss Retirement: Navigating Financial Freedom
Replies
0
Views
2K
wereli
W
A
Public sector enjoys 80pc of gold-plated pensions – while private workers suffer
Replies
0
Views
1
admin
A
Back
Top