| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Decolonization
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Decolonization

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Author
Pabbicus View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 157
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pabbicus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Decolonization
    Posted: 02 Dec 2009 at 23:10
Why is decolonization so pressed for from the 20th century to today? What makes decolonization good? I may be overstepping a boundary or two, but I might go so far as to say a lot of problems in former colonial possessions in Africa and Asia would not be so widespread and damaging were those nations still colonial possessions today. Perhaps changing laws and allowing for more equality among the people would be necessary, but complete decolonization seems to have hurt the political stability of the regions more than helping it. Anyone have an opinion on this issue?
Fool! My Magikarp is immune to other Magikarps' splash attacks!
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Dec 2009 at 11:54
Well, in some cases the decolonisation should maybe have been foregone by help, support, building up a democratic system, a good infrastucture and a good level of education. But for many colonial powers those things were not so interesting. The interesting thing for them was to suck their colonies dry of natural and human resources. Then when the economic and political winds changed then the colonial powers left their former subjects to take care of the very problems that colonialism was (at least partly) reponsible of.

And do not forget that many peoples and areas are colonized still today, as the French parts of Polynesia, New Caledonia, Chiles colonialism of Easter Island, Indonesias occupation of western New Guinea and many more. One can also call the still increasing occupation of Amerindian lands in South America as a form of ongoing colonialism.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Dec 2009 at 12:43
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

.. Chiles colonialism of Easter Island,
 
That's my country, damn it!
 
What about Greenland? Isn't part of Denmark? Easter Island is Chile.


Edited by pinguin - 03 Dec 2009 at 13:16
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Dec 2009 at 12:53
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

...One can also call the still increasing occupation of Amerindian lands in South America as a form of ongoing colonialism.
 
Again. Going into internal affairs... Why don't you worry about Russians instead of fooling around with the internal affairs of our countries?
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Dec 2009 at 16:46
"Colonialism" is just another of those invented "pseudo-political" terms that when you get right down to it is practically meaningless since definiion demands finding an ox to gore. After all a "colon" is little more than a venturesome agrarian in search of new lands to plow!

Edited by drgonzaga - 06 Dec 2009 at 17:00
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Dec 2009 at 20:58
Pabbicus, I certainly agree that many former colonial possession would have been far better off, in terms of quality of life for their indigenous residents, had the Colonial colonial powers stayed longer and had the time to prepare for an orderly transition. This is particularly true in Africa. It is even true in such places like Indochina, though the peoples there were far more advanced that Africa, so the time would have had to have been much shorter. Ho Chi Minh was willing to give the French five years, but no French government of the period lasted long enough to make a decision. The British and Americans bowed out of Asia when they recognized that it was no longer feasible to stay. In the British case, India, Pakistan, Malaya, and Singapore can be called successes.

Carch, you might benefit from reading Henri Bruschwig's "Mythes et realities de L'imperialisme Colonial Francais 1871 - 1914" (Librairie Artmanc Colin, Paris, 1960), particularly Chapter 6, which had various graphs showing that France invested more money in their colonies that they received back, and often the resulting economic changes benefited competing powers more than they did the French. The idea that colonialism was driven by economics is a simplistic Marxist view.  Presumed power and prestige, the image of one's nation's "place in the world", and of "bringing light to the darkness", had far more to do with colonialism than profits, which tended to be illusory. If that clashes with your sense of  what should have been common sense at the time, remember that these were the generations that sent their sons and grandsons into the trenches in 1914-1918.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Dec 2009 at 21:05
At least the period after "liberation" of so great parts of the world may cast some doubt on the idea of "total independence", since there is rather inter-dependece. At least to some degree there seems to have been a tendency to wish both the europeans and their "culture and way of life" far and away. As long as those who wish so stayed in their own countries or at least "non-european" regions such a view can in principle make some sense. But there came millions (both to former colonial "masters" and to others -the later may be rigth to feel less obliged) and then the idea of "liberation" including insisting on "cultural" parts makes less sense(an attitude of "I am very proud of my newly "liberated country and despise Europe. So let me come out as fast as possible from this belowed homeland and let me practice its fabulous ways among those awfull europeans"?).
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Location: Alberta, Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1980
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Dec 2009 at 21:37
Originally posted by Pabbicus Pabbicus wrote:

Why is decolonization so pressed for from the 20th century to today? What makes decolonization good? I may be overstepping a boundary or two, but I might go so far as to say a lot of problems in former colonial possessions in Africa and Asia would not be so widespread and damaging were those nations still colonial possessions today. Perhaps changing laws and allowing for more equality among the people would be necessary, but complete decolonization seems to have hurt the political stability of the regions more than helping it. Anyone have an opinion on this issue?
 
Decolonization gave the opportunity to the local populations to work for their own interests, not the colonizing powers. While nations like Britain did provide much benefit in bringing order and development to regions like India for instance, they also imposed some pretty strict limitations on the local populations in regards to personal advancement and control over local government and business.
 
Some countries could be downright ruthless in how they controlled the populations of their colonies.
 
 
 
 


Edited by DukeC - 03 Dec 2009 at 21:41
we have a blind date with destiny..and it looks like she's ordered the lobster
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Dec 2009 at 22:04
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

.. Chiles colonialism of Easter Island,
 
That's my country, damn it!
 
What about Greenland? Isn't part of Denmark? Easter Island is Chile.


Greenland is also colonized, but it is ongoing discussions on more selfgovernment and maybe independance one day.
Easter islanders did not invite Chileans, they just came and took the land. Easter Island ought to get freedom one day.

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

...One can also call the still increasing occupation of Amerindian lands in South America as a form of ongoing colonialism.
 
Again. Going into internal affairs... Why don't you worry about Russians instead of fooling around with the internal affairs of our countries?


It is hard to stand indifferent before Latinos brutal  treatment of the Amerindians and the ongoing land theft, destruction of their environment and culture, and the displacement of them. This is a matter that concerns the whole world.
I am also against Russian opression of indigenous peoples in for example parts of siberia.


Edited by Carcharodon - 03 Dec 2009 at 22:16
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Dec 2009 at 22:09
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:



Carch, you might benefit from reading Henri Bruschwig's "Mythes et realities de L'imperialisme Colonial Francais 1871 - 1914" (Librairie Artmanc Colin, Paris, 1960), particularly Chapter 6, which had various graphs showing that France invested more money in their colonies that they received back, and often the resulting economic changes benefited competing powers more than they did the French. The idea that colonialism was driven by economics is a simplistic Marxist view.  Presumed power and prestige, the image of one's nation's "place in the world", and of "bringing light to the darkness", had far more to do with colonialism than profits, which tended to be illusory. If that clashes with your sense of  what should have been common sense at the time, remember that these were the generations that sent their sons and grandsons into the trenches in 1914-1918.


Different factors of power, concurrence, strategy, ideology, religion and other considerations were also  present but the main motif was still economic.

That some colonies turned out to be bad business was one of the reasons that they were decolonized, because of changes in political and economic realities. Still, that do not take away the fact that many colonies were plundered. That some colonial powers could not properly manage the riches they stole, or that the profit was not so great as they initially thought it would be, is another matter.



Edited by Carcharodon - 03 Dec 2009 at 22:24
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Dec 2009 at 22:58
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Pabbicus, I certainly agree that many former colonial possession would have been far better off, in terms of quality of life for their indigenous residents, had the Colonial colonial powers stayed longer and had the time to prepare for an orderly transition. This is particularly true in Africa. It is even true in such places like Indochina, though the peoples there were far more advanced that Africa, so the time would have had to have been much shorter. Ho Chi Minh was willing to give the French five years, but no French government of the period lasted long enough to make a decision. The British and Americans bowed out of Asia when they recognized that it was no longer feasible to stay. In the British case, India, Pakistan, Malaya, and Singapore can be called successes.

Carch, you might benefit from reading Henri Bruschwig's "Mythes et realities de L'imperialisme Colonial Francais 1871 - 1914" (Librairie Artmanc Colin, Paris, 1960), particularly Chapter 6, which had various graphs showing that France invested more money in their colonies that they received back, and often the resulting economic changes benefited competing powers more than they did the French. The idea that colonialism was driven by economics is a simplistic Marxist view.  Presumed power and prestige, the image of one's nation's "place in the world", and of "bringing light to the darkness", had far more to do with colonialism than profits, which tended to be illusory. If that clashes with your sense of  what should have been common sense at the time, remember that these were the generations that sent their sons and grandsons into the trenches in 1914-1918.
 
Outright lies! thats what it is (not directed at you of course).
 
The claim that France (or any other colonial power for that matter) invested in the colonies more than they gave them is audaciously outrageous, utterly naive and outright racist. In the last several years there as been a move to whitewash the colonial era by paiting the picture of the "benevolent" white colonists who came not only to benifit himself but also to help his fellow human being.
 
This view is nothing but sugur coated crap. The same crap of the 19th century when it was the white guy coming to civilise the savages and teach them how to rule themselves.
 
Not only that, but one should not forget that it is a fact that the only people who actually benifited from investments of the colonial powers were the colonists themselves while at the same time the natives were bled to death by taxes which also went to the benifit of the colonists and there is no prime example than Algeria.
 
In Algeria, the most productive lands were stripped from their native owners and given to the colons. Then the natives were forbidden from becoming French citizens despite the fact that Algeria was part of metropolitan France. For taxes, 70% of the taxes collected from Algeria came from the natives despite having only 20% of the fortune and 90% of the population and to add insult to injury, they only got a fraction of what they paid since it was the colons who controlled the spending. When Algeria got its independence, there was simply no infrastructure except in the cities where the colons formed a majority or a significant minority.
 
This was the same in Vietnam where only Hanoi, Saigon and Da lat had any kind of developement while the rest of the country was in poverty.
 
There were three reasons why european powers obtained colonies:
1- Economic (The Americas, India and the cost of Africa for example).
2- Strategic (South Africa initially before the agricultural revolution and Gold as well as the pacific islands).
3- New Lands for densly populated countries with large poor masses (Central Asian countries, New Zealand and others).
 
Any other reason is simly illogical.
 
Al-Jassas


Edited by Al Jassas - 03 Dec 2009 at 23:01
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Location: Alberta, Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1980
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Dec 2009 at 23:41

Aren't you the guy who started the thread on stereotypes Al, what are the chances that the "white guys" you're talking about here all fit into the nice neat little box you're trying to package them in?

Colonization was a complex process that went through many different stages over centuries in some cases.

we have a blind date with destiny..and it looks like she's ordered the lobster
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Dec 2009 at 00:45
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:



Greenland is also colonized, but it is ongoing discussions on more selfgovernment and maybe independance one day.
Easter islanders did not invite Chileans, they just came and took the land. Easter Island ought to get freedom one day.
 
Do you know what would have happened if Chileasn didn't take the Island? So the Danish didn't take Greenland? Confused So, there isn't conversation in Chile for more self government?
 
Please, kindly shut up in matters you have no idea. Besides, Easter Island is Chile and that's not your business.

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:



It is hard to stand indifferent before Latinos brutal  treatment of the Amerindians and the ongoing land theft, destruction of their environment and culture, and the displacement of them. This is a matter that concerns the whole world.
I am also against Russian opression of indigenous peoples in for example parts of siberia.
 
You better mind your business and stop lieying
 
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Dec 2009 at 08:28
Originally posted by DukeC DukeC wrote:

Aren't you the guy who started the thread on stereotypes Al, what are the chances that the "white guys" you're talking about here all fit into the nice neat little box you're trying to package them in?

Colonization was a complex process that went through many different stages over centuries in some cases.

 
 
Hello Duke
 
The benevolet white guy stereotype is precisely what these people are trying to propagate in their BS they call "Historical Research". What I did was simply expose it.
 
By the way I started a discussion but didn't claim I was a saint.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Mixcoatl View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 02 Aug 2004
Location: Poyais
Status: Offline
Points: 5042
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mixcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Dec 2009 at 09:06
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

And do not forget that many peoples and areas are colonized still today, as the French parts of Polynesia, New Caledonia, Chiles colonialism of Easter Island, Indonesias occupation of western New Guinea and many more. One can also call the still increasing occupation of Amerindian lands in South America as a form of ongoing colonialism.

I don't see any more decolonization in the near future. Except for New Caledonia and perhaps Tokelau and the Turks and Caicos (both negligeably small anyway) there aren't any serious attempts to move toward independence, and most remaining dependencies are happy with their status. In fact Mayotte and several of the Netherlands Antilles have held referendums which resulted in a closer integration with the mother country.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Dec 2009 at 10:35
The problem with "de-colonisation" and other forms of "liberation" as I see it may be not so much that their critisism of the former colonial power are all wrong. Rather there may be a danger people see "independence" as some "miracle medicine" solving all problems. Perhaps this problem has much in common with "revolutionary" movements in general -  the possibillity of creating a greater evil than were before instead of making things better.
But then if one uncompromising advocates principles of "independence", "self - determination", even "cultural self confidence" for those still not having it, then perhaps there should be some consequence. May there not be an irony those countries that are part of the world today often are accused of "nationalism", "chauvinism" etcetera for inner management? At least there appear to be new questions and problems with independent countries since none of them are placed on isolated planets anyway.
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Location: Alberta, Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1980
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Dec 2009 at 17:32
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Hello Duke
 
The benevolet white guy stereotype is precisely what these people are trying to propagate in their BS they call "Historical Research". What I did was simply expose it.
 
By the way I started a discussion but didn't claim I was a saint.
 
Al-Jassas
 
Colonization was a two edged sword, while it often was exploitive, it also was often beneficial to local populations even if that wasn't the intent of the colonizers. In India the British brought unity to a fractured subcontinent, provided it with a modern transportation network and established a civil service and parlimentary system that while it's not perfect is stable.
 
Many of the people who went out to the colonies did do so with the best of intentions and many of them didn't last long there due to diseases they had no immunity to.
 
There are usually two sides(or more) to any story, that's one of the cool things about this place, you're probably going to get them all.
 
 
 
 
we have a blind date with destiny..and it looks like she's ordered the lobster
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Dec 2009 at 20:14
Al Jassus, in re:  "This was the same in Vietnam where only Hanoi, Saigon and Da lat had any kind of developement while the rest of the country was in poverty."

Would you mind giving me a citation for that? When I was in Vietnam, electric lines ran throughout all the major cities. And the plaque on the metal pylons read "SEUF" (Societe Electrique Union Francaise).  Granted, once you got outside the major settled ares, not just the major cities, there were no electric lines. But that had been true of many rural areas in the U.S. back in the 30s and 40s. Likewise, the cities and towns were all connected by a series of all weather roads, or in some cases, canals. Off the top of my head, Langson was well developed, as was Nam Dinh (center of the Northern cotton industry), Haiphong, Danang, Hue (OK, former imperial capital, so of course!), Qui Nhon, Pleiku (which had been a very small settlement of only thousands), Ban Me Thuot, Nha Trang, Phan Thiet, Phan Rang, Bien Hoa, Thu Dau Mot, My Tho, Vinh Long, Can Tho. How about hospitals? you don't believe that the French implemented a first rate medical system to treat both the local population and their animals? Well, I guess that the present government leaves the names of Doctors Yersin and Pasteur on their boulevards just for old times sake. And how about the educational system? The same one that produced Vo Nguyen Giap?

Here's a link to the Phan Thiet water tower, which was built in colonial times and is the symbol of the city. (What, those dirty French colonists provided the locals with pure water? Heresy! Also, note who they had design and built it. Well known Frenchmen? I think not.)    http://en.skydoor.net/place/Phan_Thiet_Water_Tower

The majority of Vietnam was agricultural, but then so was France right up until the 1950s. Indeed, one factor that induced some Vietnamese war veterans (of WWI and WWII) to join independence movements was a series of experiences in France that convinced them that French civilization was no more developed than their own was. (examples can be found in "Les Linh Tap" by Maurice Rives and Eric Deroo.)

Now, was the colonial experience "racist"? It certainly encouraged racism among its lowest element of colons. Rives and Deroo also cite the difference in treatment of Indochinese troops in France and within their own home country as another reason many later joined liberation movements.


Edited by lirelou - 04 Dec 2009 at 20:32
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Dec 2009 at 20:24
Hey, Al Jass. in re: "The claim that France (or any other colonial power for that matter) invested in the colonies more than they gave them is audaciously outrageous, utterly naive and outright racist."

First, if there are statistics to support that argument, how is it outrageous? Second, how does one become an outright racist simply by positing an argument contrary to your own accepted view? Talk about stereotyping...
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Dec 2009 at 20:31
Well I am not an expert on Vietnam but from what I read only places with large French populations (the cities cited above) received large amounts of developement. And in any case the Vietnamese society if I am not mistaken was dominated by aristocracy since Vietnam was a kingdom and to control the people who formed the vast majority of the population the aristocracy and the upper middle class had to be appeased and given educational as well as economic incentives so as not to rebel (the division between the Catholic minority and Buddhist majority comes to mind).
 
In any I mentioned earlier that whatever serves the economic, and to a lesser extent strategic, interests of the superpower they will do it. The Maoris were given the rights of citizens at a time when their cousins across the Tasmin sea were not even considered human to begin with. This wasn't because of the love of them but because they were a fierce people with a large proportion of the population living in a strategic corner of the world. They had to be appeased. The Algerians were given lots of rights when WWI happened because France wanted to recruit them.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Dec 2009 at 21:05
"The Algerians were given lots of rights when WWI happened because France wanted to recruit them."

Yes, and many Algerians continued to serve in the French Army during the war, as both draftees, regulars, and irregulars. According to Gen (Ret) R. Hure's (Editor) L'Armee d'Afrique 1830-1962 (Lavauzelle, Paris, 1977), pp. 457-460, some 400,000 Algerian Muslims served within the French Armed Forces both within and without Algeria during the war, with the highest peak strength being some 200,000. This included regulars, draftees, 6,300 rallied former ALN, Harkis, Mokhaznis, and muslim commandos serving within the mobile security groups.  In fact, just last month I was in my local military store and ran into a very attractive Sergeant-Chef wearing paratroop battle dress and a name plate with a Kabylie name.  I naturally had to ask her, and she told me that her grandfather had been a Harki during the war.

If the French had given the Algerians full rights earlier, there would have been no war. That was the true tragedy of Algeria.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Dec 2009 at 21:22
Fantassus: In re: "The problem with "de-colonisation" and other forms of "liberation" as I see it may be not so much that their critisism of the former colonial power are all wrong. Rather there may be a danger people see "independence" as some "miracle medicine" solving all problems. Perhaps this problem has much in common with "revolutionary" movements in general -  the possibillity of creating a greater evil than were before instead of making things better."

Yes, many independence movements assumed that the cash cow of the colonial budget would somehow be automatically inherited by the new government. And, that those inheriting it would possess the innate talents to keep it running. In the case of strategic resources with a high demand, and other obvious riches, the problem is simpler in that the customers merely come to the new owner. Any failures or disputes that arise subsequently generally revolve around how the profits are being divided, or not. But few newly independent countries have such a simple economy. Zimbabwe is a prime example. Its economy was largely based upon agriculture, not only corn (maize) and other staples, but such things as tobacco leaf. Mugabe presumed that anyone could run a prosperous farm, and he was wrong. Much of Rhodesia's prosperity resided in the grey matter of its White farmers, who knew what crops were likely to bring a good price at a determined time. Much as its businessmen knew what markets Zimbabwean products did best in at any time. Without those two key actors in the national economy, things fell apart.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Sparten View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 5204
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sparten Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Dec 2009 at 10:25

My two cents. Or to use a Colonial expression, "Anna"

1)The British united India is a myth perpetuated by modern raci......err historians. S Asia was united many times and indeed the Delhi Sultanate, the Mauryans and the Mughals (briefly) had control of territories greater then the maximum extent of the Raj. Indeed the seminal work colonial work on Sub-Continenatal History, V Smiths A History of India made a big hullabaloo about the benefits of British in India, but uniting was not one of them.
 
2)As for the Civil Service, the British for the most part did not introduce anything new at local level. The Patwari system was kept by them and if anything became more and more corrupt and inaccessible, to the locals, in earlier times the Patwari had been elected and responsible to the locals, now he owed his appintment to the Deputy Commissioner and that meant he was less interested in the local population then before, indeed government became more inaccessible during British times. Not to mention the piles and piles of paperwork that had to be filled.
 
3) There was development in some areas yes, but this was far dwarfed by destitution in others. bengal for instance had always been the richest part of S Asia, but during the British era it suffered famines and other losses, famines had been very rare in S Asia during the preceeding centuries, and the rule of the day during the British Raj. Literacy dropped from being universal (at least in one or two languages) to next too nothing.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Dec 2009 at 16:18
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
Do you know what would have happened if Chileasn didn't take the Island? So the Danish didn't take Greenland? Confused So, there isn't conversation in Chile for more self government?
 
Please, kindly shut up in matters you have no idea. Besides, Easter Island is Chile and that's not your business.


Noone know exactly what would have happened if Chile had not taken Easter Island. That Chile in some way saved the Rapanui is just a rationalization.
And the matter of colonial aggression is a topic that concerns the whole world. Everybody has the right to have opinions about that.

 
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

You better mind your business and stop lieying
 


We live in an interconnected world were everybody has the right to protest against brutal opression. And the brutal opression of the Amerindians in Latin America is well documented. So I will continue to protest against it in all ways possible.


Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:


I don't see any more decolonization in the near future. Except for New Caledonia and perhaps Tokelau and the Turks and Caicos (both negligeably small anyway) there aren't any serious attempts to move toward independence, and most remaining dependencies are happy with their status. In fact Mayotte and several of the Netherlands Antilles have held referendums which resulted in a closer integration with the mother country.


In parts of French polynesia there are still movements for greater self rule or independence. And in Easter island there are also people who want more independence. In other places it can vary.
In western part of New Guinea there is a hard struggle for independence which Indonesias government try to quench by brute force.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Dec 2009 at 16:40
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:


Noone know exactly what would have happened if Chile had not taken Easter Island. That Chile in some way saved the Rapanui is just a rationalization.
And the matter of colonial aggression is a topic that concerns the whole world. Everybody has the right to have opinions about that.
 
If Chile hasn't taken Easter Island the original population would be probably extincted by now. Please read about the slave raids by Peru. About the lepra that devasted natives, and about the cronical hunger that people was suffering after the impact of the environmental disaster that the own natives provocated.
 
If Chile is guilty of something it was the indiference of the earlier govenments. However, today Natives have the same rights than continentals. Even more, they feel Chileans! And the last news is that they not only have some degree of self-government but also are just managed to imposse limits on the immigration of continentals and foreigners.
 
Even more, today the population of Easter Island is mixed by far. So, you can't claim only pure natives have the right to live there.
 
That's what I mean when I say you have no idea what you are talking about.


Edited by pinguin - 05 Dec 2009 at 16:43
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Dec 2009 at 17:09
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

[
If Chile is guilty of something it was the indiference of the earlier govenments. However, today Natives have the same rights than continentals. Even more, they feel Chileans! And the last news is that they not only have some degree of self-government but also are just managed to imposse limits on the immigration of continentals and foreigners.
 
Even more, today the population of Easter Island is mixed by far. So, you can't claim only pure natives have the right to live there.
 
That's what I mean when I say you have no idea what you are talking about.


Well, I have heard that many natives are still not overly content with Chilean government and that many of them desire even more self governing and in the future maybe even full independance. I have actually read letters and articles by natives themselves where they claim this. And I think they know more about this question than you.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Dec 2009 at 17:49
Originally posted by Sparten Sparten wrote:

My two cents. Or to use a Colonial expression, "Anna"

1)The British united India is a myth perpetuated by modern raci......err historians. S Asia was united many times and indeed the Delhi Sultanate, the Mauryans and the Mughals (briefly) had control of territories greater then the maximum extent of the Raj. Indeed the seminal work colonial work on Sub-Continenatal History, V Smiths A History of India made a big hullabaloo about the benefits of British in India, but uniting was not one of them.
 
2)As for the Civil Service, the British for the most part did not introduce anything new at local level. The Patwari system was kept by them and if anything became more and more corrupt and inaccessible, to the locals, in earlier times the Patwari had been elected and responsible to the locals, now he owed his appintment to the Deputy Commissioner and that meant he was less interested in the local population then before, indeed government became more inaccessible during British times. Not to mention the piles and piles of paperwork that had to be filled.
 
3) There was development in some areas yes, but this was far dwarfed by destitution in others. bengal for instance had always been the richest part of S Asia, but during the British era it suffered famines and other losses, famines had been very rare in S Asia during the preceeding centuries, and the rule of the day during the British Raj. Literacy dropped from being universal (at least in one or two languages) to next too nothing.
 
Thank you Sparten for reminding everyone the topic is History and Empires, although apparently pursuit of pet peeves is preferable to some. Now to business:
 
Clearly, one has to first define what is meant by uniting and forging a "modern" India. I suspect British historians stay away from that topic in terms of politics because discussion requires a close inspection of events between 1927 and 1947 and the decisions reached under the Mountbatten viceregency. Hence, I do believe that "unity" is worthy of further exploration in terms of the present without referencing ancient empires whose connection to current politics is tenuous to the extreme. Was there an "India"--other than a vague geographic expression--when Vasco de Gama levelled his guns on Calicut?
 
Interesting that you would surmise famines were "unknown" in the sub-continent prior to the arrival of the Europeans--or the British for that matter. Does not such require postulating the area an Eden unique in the annals of geophysics? Likewise the suppositions on literacy, which I find uniquely strange given History everywhere else on the globe. Social hierarchies, you know. I can not find any evidence that suddenly in the 19th century the vast majority of populations lost their capacity to read and write premised that they possessed such in a more remote past. Yes, the language poblem is a valid point for inquiry but one enters dangerous grounds in the postulation of a "national" one.
 
Just some food for thought and further discussion within the context of "colonization", even if one accepts the jargon of the 20th century. 
 
 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Dec 2009 at 18:05
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

...
Well, I have heard that many natives are still not overly content with Chilean government and that many of them desire even more self governing and in the future maybe even full independance. I have actually read letters and articles by natives themselves where they claim this. And I think they know more about this question than you.
 
Well, you heard many things. How many Swedish are happy with your country's government?
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Dec 2009 at 18:30
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

...
Well, I have heard that many natives are still not overly content with Chilean government and that many of them desire even more self governing and in the future maybe even full independance. I have actually read letters and articles by natives themselves where they claim this. And I think they know more about this question than you.
 
Well, you heard many things. How many Swedish are happy with your country's government?


Its a difference, we are not colonized by foreigners.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Dec 2009 at 18:36

And the Sammi?

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.