Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'.

Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tweakabelle -> Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/24/2013 1:04:01 AM)
"Three things always accompany occupation: torture by the masters who claim the moral high ground, declarations that they have won their war even though they are in retreat, and the absolute insistence on a dignified exit after negotiations. [...] And so the newsreels show the Royal Marines leaving Haifa and Aden, the Somerset Light Infantry leaving India, the Black Watch departing the new Pakistan, the US 21st Infantry Regiment leaving Saigon. No-one wanted a repeat of France’s crushing defeat at Dien Bein Phu. The Brits lost only 183 dead in 1919-1921 Ireland and 370 in Cyprus, against 414 in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The Americans lost 47,424 in Vietnam, 5,281 in Iraq, more than 2,000 in Afghanistan, the French 17,456 in Algeria, the Soviets around 15,000 in Afghanistan. Some of the figures are contested; no-one has collected the statistics of civilian or ‘enemy’ dead. They run, of course, into the millions. ‘Our’ wars – western and Soviet – were supposedly fought to preserve communism, to ‘contain’ communism, for empire, against ‘terror’, to destroy ‘weapons of mass destruction’ or to preserve what was left of imperial prestige. The ‘enemy’ always fought to get rid of ‘foreigners’. And now we have ‘won’ the battle over a word in Doha. Just so we can get out of Afghanistan." http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-three-things-that-always-accompany-occupation-8670097.html (my emphasis) Thus concludes the distinguished correspondent Robert Fisk's searing analysis of Western meddling intervention and theft in non-Western countries, aka the great evil of colonialism, still ongoing as I write in Afghanistan, Iraq Palestine and many African countries. What will it take for the West to consign this monstrous evil to its past?

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/24/2013 1:28:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle What will it take for the West to consign this monstrous evil to its past? After giving it more than one thought... I would say in short, 50 years. The longer answer would be, that I see a clear moral progress from the times of the formal colonialism, thought the time of the ideological / economical neocolonialism, to the current "low intensity" colonialism which seems to me a remnant of previous, already obsolete and now very rare models. Palestine is a remnant of classic imperialism. It is not colonialism, it is imperialism, older than colonialism. Afghanistan is more a remnant of the ideological colonialism, thanks the 11S, it is about "teaching them human values". "Respect the Human Rights... or else". Iraq is economic colonialism, "neocolonialism", driven by corporations. In the three cases, it is a remnant. These models are not used anymore, nowhere in the world. As the general moral progress advances, the pressure to get rid of those exception will grow, similar to the fall of the apartheid in South Africa. This is my point of view, at least. After giving it a couple of thoughts. I am open to suggestions. Best regards.

FrostedFlake -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/24/2013 1:28:22 AM)
Perhaps if the progress that could have been made with the wasted effort were somehow put into graspable terms it would be realized that war is waste. Perhaps then the question of whether it's 'worth it' might look different. Visualize a brand new Kenworth, with a 53 foot box trailer. Visualize another parked beside it. And another. And another. Until you have a line of trucks parked door to door that reaches around the World, twice. That is what we could have bought with our money. Instead, we fought a couple big and dozens of tiny wars that no one can explain. Now, to finish the image, take the Bill of Rights and use it to polish the chrome. That's a lot of trucks. 24 million. But we don't have them. Instead of building something with our money, we destroyed. And what we destroyed is worth much more than 24 million brand new long haul trucks. And to do that, we destroyed the Bill of Rights. All Our money. Gone. All that stuff we wrecked. Gone. All those people we killed. Dead. And our government, the only thing that can really threaten us, is left holding its' own leash. Sorry. That is the best I can do, right now.

Politesub53 -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/24/2013 4:14:32 AM)
"What will it take for the West to consign this monstrous evil to its past?" It isnt just the West though Tweaks, and it isnt just recent. Sadly it is an ongoing event through mankinds history, worldwide. One tribe dominating another for resources. The barbarism often coming from both sides. The question you needed to ask, is will mankind ever change ? Somehow I doubt it. Britain is slowly getting to grips with some of its past issues, as the recent court ruling in favour of Kenyans has shown.

Rule -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/24/2013 5:24:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: The ‘enemy’ always fought to get rid of ‘foreigners’. Thus concludes the distinguished correspondent Robert Fisk's searing analysis of Western meddling intervention and theft in non-Western countries One of the distinctions between animals and humans is that a human being when conquered will surrender and benefit from the superior civilization of his conqueror, whereas an animal will fight to its death. quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle What will it take for the West to consign this monstrous evil to its past? I do hope that we will always strive to bring civilization to the savages and warrior populations.

thishereboi -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/24/2013 6:34:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 "What will it take for the West to consign this monstrous evil to its past?" It isnt just the West though Tweaks, and it isnt just recent. Sadly it is an ongoing event through mankinds history, worldwide. One tribe dominating another for resources. The barbarism often coming from both sides. The question you needed to ask, is will mankind ever change ? Somehow I doubt it. Britain is slowly getting to grips with some of its past issues, as the recent court ruling in favour of Kenyans has shown. I think this about sums it up. Good post.

jlf1961 -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/24/2013 7:03:52 AM)
The west will not admit to the problems caused by colonialism, neo colonialism or any other interference in other countries under the pretense of "improving" their country. I mean, do you really think the former colonial powers will ever admit to fucking the populations of former colonies with barbed wire condoms and no lube? As for the few attempts at making things right, such as the ruling pointed out by Politesub, no country actually admits to its past "fuck over people in the name of nationalism" at least not generally. Instead they just change what it is called and continue to fuck other countries over. Thus is the human philosophy, fuck over everyone you can before they can fuck you over.

kdsub -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/24/2013 8:11:54 AM)
quote: The question you needed to ask, is will mankind ever change ? Somehow I doubt it. But isn't it amazing that at the time we don't see the greater harm. Our actions, our meaning any democratic nation, seem just and justified. Only years later do we see our greed and aggression. But I think we should not be all gloom and doom. Overall the world is a better place than 60 years ago. I really do believe the Internet will be our savior. The sharing of information is shrinking the world and bringing us all closer together.

Zonie63 -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/24/2013 9:01:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Thus concludes the distinguished correspondent Robert Fisk's searing analysis of Western meddling intervention and theft in non-Western countries, aka the great evil of colonialism, still ongoing as I write in Afghanistan, Iraq Palestine and many African countries. What will it take for the West to consign this monstrous evil to its past? On its face, I think the West has been trying to play a balancing act in the post-colonial world. While the West has given up its colonies and supported the "independence" and "sovereignty" of nations like Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other nations of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, we concurrently feel a sense of responsibility for the mess that the West created in those areas of the world due to our long-term interference and involvement. Even assuming that the West has the best of intentions, there's still a sense of responsibility for what the West has done in the past that we can't really abandon these nations - so even citizens of good conscience are left with a moral dilemma. As to how it can end, the West itself might have to be the impetus for change as much as anywhere else. We've grown accustomed to the benefits and luxuries of the current world system, and even those who have the best of intentions might find it difficult to let go of that. Those who argue in favor of Western interventionism often do some from the standpoint of national interests, implying that if we didn't involve ourselves all over the world, we would face severe shortages and economic hardship at home. But we may be facing that in any case, so it seems that the West's post-colonial policy of interventionism has led us to another dead end. The question is, what would be the fallout if the U.S. and other Western nations pulled out completely and left these nations alone to be completely independent and sovereign? Pro-Western apologists might argue that all hell would break loose, that Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere around the world would plunge into complete chaos - civil war, revolutions, military coups - which could interfere with the flow of trade, commodities, and resources which could have a detrimental impact on the West. If that happens, could the West stay the course of non-interventionism - or will our economic/consumer needs take greater importance and give more support towards interventionism?

YN -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/24/2013 9:34:13 AM)
"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

Zonie63 -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/24/2013 11:19:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: YN "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." Well, yes, that's it, in a nutshell. To some degree, I think we've progressed some distance from the days of Manifest Destiny and the White Man's Burden, but I think that we sometimes fool ourselves and rearrange our perceptions to make us believe that we are now different from the way we used to be. In the old days, we seemed more shamelessly brazen about it, whereas nowadays, we dress it up as a crusade for "freedom" and "democracy." It seems that it's been that way since the World Wars, and both liberals and conservatives have branched off into competing philosophies within this same Western perception they both share. Both sides might very well have good intentions, but whether or not their intentions are good or bad is not really the problem as much as the perception upon which those intentions are based. While we don't generally use terms like "third world" anymore, the perceptions associated with it still persist, and this is where both conservatives and liberals in the West seem to go in different directions. To take an analogy from domestic policy, the "third world" would be analogous to an inner city "ghetto," while the upper class liberals and conservatives clash over how to deal with it. The conservatives would press for law and order (along with more capitalism and missionaries), while the liberals would press for more social programs, education, etc. Both sides tend to react with what they believe is moral and ideologically correct, according to their own belief system. But the question is whether their perception of the global situation is accurate and whether their reaction to it is appropriate across international boundaries. Both sides would claim that they want to "help," without really questioning whether or not these nations and their people really want or need our "help." The conservatives would argue from the perception that they're "helping" the people of these nations by establishing a democratic, free-market system which will help the people enjoy the same benefits of capitalism and freedom that we have come to enjoy. The liberals might argue from a slightly different standpoint, but they're somewhat hampered ideologically since they can't actually come out and argue against interventionism as a general principle. They have to be somewhat cagey about it and point out other flaws within the policy - not question the policy itself, since they might need to exercise their option to "help" in their own way as well. As a result, neither major political party actually questions America's need and obligation to "help" the rest of the world wherever it may be needed. The only question becomes where and how that "help" is implemented.

Phydeaux -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/24/2013 11:49:08 AM)
Bah. The entire idea is poppycock. Rejecting colonialism is rejecting one element in an array of options of statecraft -for both the dominant and subordinant client. Few would contest the idea that Israel is a client state of the Us. While many on the left would deny that both states have derived benefit; nonetheless they have.

Focus50 -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/24/2013 2:11:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle "Three things always accompany occupation: torture by the masters who claim the moral high ground, declarations that they have won their war even though they are in retreat, and the absolute insistence on a dignified exit after negotiations. [...] And so the newsreels show the Royal Marines leaving Haifa and Aden, the Somerset Light Infantry leaving India, the Black Watch departing the new Pakistan, the US 21st Infantry Regiment leaving Saigon. No-one wanted a repeat of France’s crushing defeat at Dien Bein Phu. The Brits lost only 183 dead in 1919-1921 Ireland and 370 in Cyprus, against 414 in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The Americans lost 47,424 in Vietnam, 5,281 in Iraq, more than 2,000 in Afghanistan, the French 17,456 in Algeria, the Soviets around 15,000 in Afghanistan. Some of the figures are contested; no-one has collected the statistics of civilian or ‘enemy’ dead. They run, of course, into the millions. ‘Our’ wars – western and Soviet – were supposedly fought to preserve communism, to ‘contain’ communism, for empire, against ‘terror’, to destroy ‘weapons of mass destruction’ or to preserve what was left of imperial prestige. The ‘enemy’ always fought to get rid of ‘foreigners’. And now we have ‘won’ the battle over a word in Doha. Just so we can get out of Afghanistan." http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-three-things-that-always-accompany-occupation-8670097.html (my emphasis) Thus concludes the distinguished correspondent Robert Fisk's searing analysis of Western meddling intervention and theft in non-Western countries, aka the great evil of colonialism, still ongoing as I write in Afghanistan, Iraq Palestine and many African countries. What will it take for the West to consign this monstrous evil to its past? I agree with a philosophy that nations should be run by their own for their own. That said, I'm not so convinced many of the African nations are in a better place even decades after their colonisers pulled out. This year's rebel leader will likely be next year's Prime Minister - but only for a year or two - kinda cycle. Nor do I think Afghanistan or Iraq is anything to do with western colonisation. But there is an undeniable stigma of foreign invaders to it, and it's time we left so they can get on with the civil war phase.... Focus.

Aswad -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/24/2013 4:00:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule One of the distinctions between animals and humans is that a human being when conquered will surrender and benefit from the superior civilization of his conqueror, whereas an animal will fight to its death. If so, I'm proud to be an animal. quote: I do hope that we will always strive to bring civilization to the savages and warrior populations. That's savagery right there, to say nothing of the economics of the thing. Starting a war is choosing to be a poor loser while hoping the other side will lose more. IWYW, — Aswad.

Rule -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/24/2013 4:12:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad If so, I'm proud to be an animal. I will bring flowers to your grave after the Dutch have invaded and conquered Norway. [;)] quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Starting a war is choosing to be a poor loser while hoping the other side will lose more. Then the Norwegians had better not sink one of our Dutch fishing boats! We will know that the Norwegians sank the boat, because we know what Norwegian whale harpoons look like.

badlilthang -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/24/2013 4:19:42 PM)
hey hey hey.....don't bring the Norwegians into this...L....points to self! bad

Aswad -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/24/2013 4:34:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule I will bring flowers to your grave after the Dutch have invaded and conquered Norway. [;)] Yeah, that might be a nice gesture. Orchids, maybe. [:D] quote: Then the Norwegians had better not sink one of our Dutch fishing boats! We will know that the Norwegians sank the boat, because we know what Norwegian whale harpoons look like. We generally try to stick to Somali pirates and the like, minus making YT vids about it. [;)] IWYW, — Aswad.

MrRodgers -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/24/2013 4:46:00 PM)
Mankind is made up of those who are the powerful and who are still hunter/gatherers. The strong gather, the weak are gathered and forced to...serve them. While it isn't people one sets out to gather, it is the fruit of their pursuit of life, without liberty and a minimum of happiness until the new culture sets in. Yes, Martha we'll have 2 billion or more very happy...slaves. Some argue that most of the world are slaves now...one way or the other and I agree. The only difference is...slave to exactly what ? Colonialism is a term whose usefulness has worn out. States are no longer remodeled into vassal instruments with society dictated by another power. The 'colonialist' or in the new neocolonialism...neoimperialism seeks to extract wealth namely labor the only real wealth and resources and simply install a whole new puppet of slave govt. or they will be 'disappeared.' Iraq and Afghanistan were first as, and have lasted 10 plus years for...a profit. Then they settle into simply heading the newest list of slaves where the goal is a military and intel. presence. That presence is for the future, not now except for intelligence which why the west doesn't care if Iran has any influence in Iraq. They both will fall under the Asian contingent. And if you think that the locals in power can't be threatened or bought off by the west, you just haven't been watching. So in the final solution you have 3 major areas of control, the west, the East and Muslim. (YES, way into the future still depending on oil, the west will take it and remove all Arab dominance of oil. OPEC will become a fully organized world-wide oil cartel...run by the west) Those future 'powers' will remove from our vocabulary almost all distinctions between people except geography and community (feudal) language and...ALL of the rest will be slaves. We will in a few more generations have a new culture and language...being the best master and being the best slave. Very cogent thoughts for this site and following.

Politesub53 -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/24/2013 5:22:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: The question you needed to ask, is will mankind ever change ? Somehow I doubt it. But isn't it amazing that at the time we don't see the greater harm. Our actions, our meaning any democratic nation, seem just and justified. Only years later do we see our greed and aggression. But I think we should not be all gloom and doom. Overall the world is a better place than 60 years ago. I really do believe the Internet will be our savior. The sharing of information is shrinking the world and bringing us all closer together. Not exactly, at least here in the UK. Most were in favour of staying out of the clusterfuck that was Iraq. Many, myself included, saw the wisdom of going after Bin Laden. Bush should have made him the aim and not regime change. Edited for spelling error

Politesub53 -> RE: Evils of colonialism and 'post-colonialism'. (6/24/2013 5:30:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: YN "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." You are probably correct. The problem is governments not thinking through long term outcomes. Maliki in Iraq springs to mind. The Shia/Sunni schism was not only inevitable, but highly predictable. Over 1,000 have died in sectarian violence in the last month alone.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625