Thread: Colonialism.... a comparison

Reflecting back I think I scored a "C+" on the topic..
Then as I was older I bought more guns just because.

A cyber invasion is more the norm these days.
Blacks lives matter, Nazis for peace ect. God a love it.







The fish

Originally Posted by bsnub

The US kicked the British out before they had any influence on the development of the nation so the US technically should not be on your list.

Rubbish Snubs. Expected a better informed comment than that from you. Are you trying to say the British had no influence after approx 170 years? Your anti British prejudice is clouding your judgement.

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

What made the British model the most economically successful?

...guns of course...and the usual white man chicanery...

I sometime wonder why bother starting a thread. A red from the resident village idiot and f%kwit Huang wanker for God knows why. By the way how did your attempt at joining TC go? Not too well I heard. Seems this is the only place you're tolerated. In your case, it's a pity stupidity isn't terminal, if it was you wouldn't make it to the next sunset. The only reason I dont have you on ignore is because your my little TD bitch who I play with like a cat does with a mouse when i have an odd moment of boredom.

Originally Posted by bsnub

^^ We kicked the pansy soap dodgers in the teeth almost right from the start. Sent them back across the pond with their tail between their legs.

With regards to economic development I think most historians would say that it was driven internally as well as by the export of raw goods early on. The conquest of the west, the building of the railroad etc where the main drivers in developing the US economy. The people who can be credited with those things would be referred to as Americans and not British.



No prejudice here but I have seen many Brits on this forum that try to paint a pretty picture of British colonialism while omitting some pretty hideous atrocities. It is clearly evident what parts of history are not taught in British schools.

Jeez snubs. Did you not read what I wrote? I did mention the dark side. Feel free to start a thread concentrating on the dark side of colonialism if you wish and I will be happy to contribute.
If the above is your take on the war of independance you are poorly read. Dont know what is taught in British schools only what was taught in Australia but in my day early history and colonialism was "whitewashed" or at least glossed over most certainly. Not so today.
Mind you I'm not sure how the USA went from 13 colonies to the whole continent without a takeover which would make any imperial country proud. Those nasty Brits still cling on to Gibralter. Akin to owning part of Cuba maybe? I'm sure the Cubans would be absolutely devestated should the Americans leave. At least those nasty Cubans will have a ready made concentration camp where they can "waterboard" a few dissidents. Of course Americans were so much better than the British. Ask any Indian who was at wounded knee or having a nice little tour on the trail of tears. To say nothing of how well Americans honoured their native treaties. But I'm sure all those atrocities and more were taught at an American school in the 50s and sixties. Then there is the mexican war where the poor Americans were just defending themselves against the nasty mexicans, it had nothing to do with acquiring territory from a much weaker opponent. A parting thought as you wax lyrical about American militiary superiority over the British. The white house is white for a reason. People in glass houses Snubs.
Now back to the subject.
DID THE COUNTRIES THAT WERE SETTLED/INVADED (if you prefer) BY BRITAIN END UP BETTER OFF IN THE LONG RUN THAN COUNTRIES SETTLED/INVADED BY OTHER COLONIAL POWERS.
Answer: NO. Because......
Answer Yes. Because.......

Snub Welcome to your world.

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

On initial examination it would appear the countries that seemd most successful were countries "acquired" by Britain. As examples I would suggest the USA Canada,Australia, New Zealand. In Asia, Malaysia, Hong Kong And Singapore and in Africa, South Africa and Rhodesia pre independance.

So where does India fit into that picture? A success?

...^The Jewel in the Crown was certainly a success...

The Brits certainly fucked India.
An Indian politician has put Winston Churchill in the same category as some of “the worst genocidal dictators” of the 20th century because of his complicity in the Bengal Famine.


Dr Shashi Tharoor, whose new book Inglorious Empire chronicles the atrocities of the British Empire, argued the former British Prime Minister’s reputation as a great wartime leader and protector of freedom was wholly miscast given his role in the Bengal famine which saw four million Bengalis starve to death.


In 1943, up to four million Bengalis starved to death when Churchill diverted food to British soldiers and countries such as Greece while a deadly famine swept through Bengal.


During an appearance at the Melbourne writers’ festival broadcast by ABC, the Indian MP noted Churchill’s orders related to Australian ships carrying wheat at Indian docks.




READ MORE
UK needs museum on empire's 'divide and rule' of India, says author
“This is a man the British would have us hail as an apostle of freedom and democracy, when he has as much blood on his hands as some of the worst genocidal dictators of the 20th century,” he said to applause.


He added: “People started dying and Churchill said well it’s all their fault anyway for breeding like rabbits. He said ‘I hate the Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion’.”


Dr Tharoor, a former Under-Secretary of the UN, also gave an extensive description of British colonial exploitation and annihilation of traditional Indian industries such as textiles which reduced it to “a poster child of third world poverty” by the time the British left in 1947.


The 5 of the worst atrocities carried out by the British Empire
5
show all
He said the “excuse that apologists [of British empire] like to make is, it’s not our fault, you just missed the bus for the industrial revolution. Well, we missed the bus because you threw us under its wheels.”


This is not the first time Dr Tharoor has voiced his frustrations about the way Churchill is remembered by the history books. In March, he argued the former PM who led Britain to victory in World War Two should be remembered alongside the most prominent dictators of the twentieth century.


“This [Churchill] is the man who the British insist on hailing as some apostle of freedom and democracy," the author told UK Asian at a launch for his book. "When to my mind he is really one of the more evil rulers of the 20th century only fit to stand in the company of the likes of Hitler, Mao and Stalin".


ADVERTISING




inRead invented by Teads


READ MORE
The British Empire’s homophobic legacy could be overturned in India
He added: “Churchill has as much blood on his hands as Hitler does. Particularly the decisions that he personally signed off during the Bengal Famine when 4.3 million people died because of the decisions he took or endorsed."


"Not only did the British pursue its own policy of not helping the victims of this famine which was created by their policies. Churchill persisted in exporting grain to Europe, not to feed actual ‘Sturdy Tommies’, to use his phrase, but add to the buffer stocks that were being piled up in the event of a future invasion of Greece and Yugoslavia”.


“Ships laden with wheat were coming in from Australia docking in Calcutta and were instructed by Churchill not to disembark their cargo but sail on to Europe,” he added. “And when conscience-stricken British officials wrote to the Prime Minister in London pointing out that his policies were causing needless loss of life all he could do was write peevishly in the margin of the report, ‘Why hasn’t Gandhi died yet?'"


Dr Tharoor first rose to prominence after his heartfelt speech at Oxford Union, discussing the economic toll British rule took on India, in July 2015 went viral.

The Poms used concentration camps to beat the Boers in South Africa. Despite this South Africa would never have become the great country it was without the British influence.

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

I sometime wonder why bother starting a thread. A red from the resident village idiot and f%kwit Huang wanker for God knows why.

Sticks and stones, dear boy, sticks and stones. He lashes out when he's embarrassed (which is often).

Originally Posted by TizMe

“Ships laden with wheat were coming in from Australia docking in Calcutta and were instructed by Churchill not to disembark their cargo but sail on to Europe,” he added. “And when conscience-stricken British officials wrote to the Prime Minister in London pointing out that his policies were causing needless loss of life all he could do was write peevishly in the margin of the report, ‘Why hasn’t Gandhi died yet?'"


.

The reason for that is that the Japanese Army were in Burma and were progressing towards Bengal and the U.K. didnt want the Japanese army to get the food and boats .

Originally Posted by TizMe

In 1943, up to four million Bengalis starved to death when Churchill diverted food to British soldiers and countries such as Greece while a deadly famine swept through Bengal.

I'm sure the Irish would empathize.

Originally Posted by Mex

The Poms used concentration camps to beat the Boers in South Africa. Despite this South Africa would never have become the great country it was without the British influence.

The Boers biggest mistake was in 1975 when they decreed that Blacks must write their final school exams in maths and science in a language Blacks hated.
Black students loved the language of English, and studied hard in English for a future education.
The students refused to learn a hated third language, and many fled to neighbouring countries only to return as terrorists.

Originally Posted by wasabi

and many fled to neighbouring countries only to return as terrorists.

...*cough*...anti-apartheid freedom fighters to the rest of the world...

You would be best advised to look at countries individually when it comes to colonization. The circumstances, and lessons learned in each case would be drastically different, even when exposed to consistent colonization principles.
The most obvious difference can be found between say Australia, envisaged as a penal colony, and India or South Africa, envisaged as a wealth producing conquest. The merging interests meant all 3 ended up getting cricket, railways and missionaries.
in each case the indigenous response was quite different, leading to varying timelines on the scale of civilisation.

^Interestingly, the Indian railways is the second largest employer in the world.

Originally Posted by Switch

in each case the indigenous response was quite different, leading to varying timelines on the scale of the white man's view of civilisation.

...ftfy...

Originally Posted by tomcat

...ftfy...

The term “white man” seems a tad bigoted and exclusive. Really tc, I expect better from you, even with your tongue firmly in cheek.

A repo accused me of using generalizations. I prefer the term, common denominators in such a large and disparate group of nations, it’s easier to consider the commonality than the vast number of differences between, say, Fiji and Canada?

Here's my entry for pointless post of the day: I misread this thread title as 'Cannibalism... a comparison'.

Three times.

Originally Posted by Switch

The term “white man” seems a tad bigoted and exclusive

...you can't run from history...