| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Empires and Colonialism
  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.


Empires and Colonialism

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
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: 08 Jan 2010 at 20:09
Aksum, a lengthy and thoughtful response. Thank you. I can only bite off a bit at a time, so here goes.

In re: "When the "'colonialist'' like the British conquered a land, the shrewd system of mercantilism was imposed.  All of a  colonies resources was to be used for the benefit of the parent country, and not in the interest of the colonies themselves.  Sugarcane, cotton , and coccoa was to be extracted from these territories , and be exported to the parent country or would be subjected to the moderation of an imperialist merchant or admiralty vessels. Indentured servants from South Asia were shipped elsewhere to work, in other lands rather than India itself I don't think the imperialist had the colonies best interest in mind, when India was more impoverished stricken country  in colonial rule then it was at this present time."

Mercantilism was certainly the ideal. What Turrel's report does is underline that it was not working that way. Again, Turrel was reporting to the National Assembly in an appendix to the budget. Those were the best figures that he had.

As for "All of a  colonies resources was to be used for the benefit of the parent country, and not in the interest of the colonies themselves." that's a bit steep. The ideal appears to have been to develop the colony to a point where it was economically standing on its feet as a modernized territory, and paying its own way as well as contributing to the Metropolis. Vietnam supposedly reached such a level under Doumier, but I cannot find that article. The point is that there were supposed to be benefits for both parties in the arrangement, and in fact colonialism did have 'benefits' for many of the colonies, even if their descendants prefer to ignore them. I am not arguing for colonialism as a "good" system. Even at its paternalistic best, it managed to offend many (but hardly all) of the colonized. Particularly those of the previous ruling classes. (i.e, the fathers of Ho Chi Minh, Vo Nguyen Giap, and virtually every founding member of the Indochinese Communist Party). But in the majority of cases, life expectancy increased under the colonial experience, possibly because the economic life of the colony generated higher revenues for a larger number of people. To take Korea under the Japanese as a quick example, the Japanese helped finance and set up the nascent Korean textile industries. They were happy to do so because it benefitted Japan. Japanese textiles were too advanced to find much market in most of Asia, but Korean textiles, rough cottons fit for peasants and workers, found an appropriate market niche that really took off in the WWI and post-WWI period  (Carter Eckhert: "The Colonial Origins of Korean Capitalism"

Lots of goods got traded out of the colony that befitted only those within. For instance, Vietnam was a major exporter of very high grade sea swallow nests for Chinese bird's nest soup. This is an expensive product (check your local Chinese market) that had only a small corresponding market in France. And don't overlook the many industries that colonial investors started, or improved. Plus, the infrastructure development that led to increased economic activity. I have to run, but colonialism represented an amazing transfer of technology and techniques from the developed world to the underdeveloped world. As such, it had bot desirable and undesirable effects. No Korean would thank the Japanese for colonizing them, but the stark facts are that under the Choeson dynasty, life expectancy for the average Korean in the late 1800 early 1900s was 40 years. Both of Kim Il-sungs parents (who were Presbyterians) died in their 30s, which was not uncommon for the times.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


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: 09 Jan 2010 at 00:10
Aksum, Back for a while. Again, thank you for your response. In re: "Indentured servants from South Asia were shipped elsewhere to work, in other lands rather than India itself I don't think the imperialist had the colonies best interest in mind, when India was more impoverished stricken country  in colonial rule then it was at this present time."

As I read this, my understanding is that you object to Indians being allowed to leave India and work in other Colonies, which again reading your understanding, was detrimental to the needs of India itself. I have never known any Indian indentured workers, but I have met a small number of their descendants from places like Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, and Panama. There was probably no recognized right to move, or to change residence, in Anglo-American law then, but such a right was established in the 1930s in a United States supreme court case that overturned a California law aimed at keeping the "Oakies" (poor Whites from Oklahoma and other points in the dustbowl) from swamping California. I assume that the general consensus today is that people do have a right to change their residence and seek economic opportunity whenever they wish. Indentured laborers weren't exactly 'shipped'. Rather they entered into contracts in which their transportation expenses were charged to their earnings. I find it hard to fault the British for such a practice. This was true for Colonial America, and it was apparently true for India. If you ever visit Panama, and take time to visit the Canal Museum, you can see photos of Indian and Chinese work gangs, along with "Gallegos" (Spaniards from Galicia) and West Indians. You will also find a small but vibrant Indian community in Panama, which has its own Mosque and Hindu temple. The chief of security in my gated community was a Mister Raj, whose ancestors came from the Punjab via Trinidad. I do not find it unjust that such people were allowed to leave India, in that they enriched the countries where they found residence.

I do understand the argument that the products of modern educational systems in third world countries who received low cost education, in effect subsidized education, in their own countries, owe something to their own nation for subsidizing that education. Certainly such countries have the option of requiring those accepted for studies abroad to return home and work within their own government or economies for a certain number of years prior to being allowed to emigrate. But that is a national matter between those governments and their citizens.
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: 09 Jan 2010 at 00:40
Aksum, in re:  "So you are saying that since the ''exclusive small elite society'' of the imperial parent countries only benefited from the colonization of territories, the  Imperialist country should be exempt from being at fault due to the majority of the population not reaping the substantial profits."

I did not say that the "exclusive small elite society" were the only ones who benefited from Colonialization. That is your interpretation. Nor did Turrel. His point was that the nation was paying mroe for their colonies than the colonies were bringing in. In other words, the maintenance of colonies cost France more than France received from them in goods, materials, and trade. Turrel's conclusion, and I concur, is that the major beneficiaries of colonialism were a few civil servants, a few investors, the Military only in the sense that its forces were larger than they would otherwise be, but not easily employable in modern European warfare, and the colony at large.

Reference this last point: When the French arrived in Vietnam, the country was only recently reunified, and still in the process of consolidating conquered territories. Large chunks of what is today Vietnam lived outside the orb of control of the Hue court. The only bridges in the country were made of bamboo. There were no bridges over any major rivers, and rice was a subsistence crop everywhere but in a small section of the recently conquered Mekong Delta. The largest ports in country had been Haiphong (still important) under the Trinh lords, and Hoi An and Ha Tien under the Nguyen Lords. Vietnam had built a series of important canals in the Mekong Delta, primarily to consolidate their claims to Lower Cambodia (google Vinh Te canal and Khmer Krom). Under the French, major ports were established in Saigon, Danang (Tourane), and Haiphong (modernized and upgraded). The dirt track that passed for the 'Mandarin Road' was modernized into a single lane all weather road, later a two lane paved highway. An entire network of colonial (national) and provincial highways were established. Most major rivers in the country were bridged with single lane road bridges and railroad bridges from Saigon to Hanoi. The rubber, coffee, and coal industries were introduced to the country. The cotton industry was greatly improved, with its center in the Red River Delta (at Nam Dinh). Vietnamese silks found an outside market. French porcelain techniques were introduced into Vietnam, and Vietnam's own pottery industry upgraded. A system of health clinics and public education was established. Here, it is important to note that the colonial authorities did not ban such practices as Chinese medicine. It exists along with Western medicine in Vietnam to this day. Rather, they identified specific areas which needed attention, launched public health information campaigns, and established institutes for tropical medicine that continue to this day. In other words, the mass of Vietnamese did benefit from French colonial occupation. But as their living standards and education proportions improved, they came to understand that they could do the same for themselves.

You ask why the French insisted on holding on after WWI. And you are on the mark. The handwriting was clearly on the wall. The days of colonialism had passed. The British recognized this, and in 1945 Mountbatten advised a group of French officers, commanding the 5th Colonial Infantry Regiment (a special operations unit), that the days of the Whites in Asia were over. The best they could hope to do was to get back to Indochina, reestablish order, and find someone (i.e., an indigenous leader) to turn it over to. History, and French politics, dictated another solution, but that belongs in a different thread.

If you are going to "fault" anyone for colonialism, you need to have a realistic view of exactly what colonialism did, and didn't, accomplish. It was never a simple good guys versus bad guys.


Edited by lirelou - 09 Jan 2010 at 00:47
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jan 2010 at 12:56

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

The ideal appears to have been to develop the colony to a point where it was economically standing on its feet as a modernized territory, and paying its own way as well as contributing to the Metropolis.


Why would the imperial country do that, I don't think the imperialist country's mission was to spread modernity and civilization to every country that it was in its periphery authority. I think one of the main reasons for modernization was the country had to be modern enough, to be suffeciently apt in extracting its raw materials and raw resources at predetermined quota. If  a country did not have roads it could not transport the the coal from a mine that was located in the middle of the country all the way to the coast for shipment. If the country's national company  did not have well equipped machinesto dig into the Earth then , commidty extraction would be very slow, which is bad for business. I fthe country did not have proper administrative panels, judiciary courts, market commissions, and other government bureaus many immigrants including those from the parent country would not of migrated to the infant colony , ensuing a  brain gain or  lending their labor abilities to industries in the new foreign country. There was also the fact that infrastructure in the government was needed so that the local chiefs, nobles, and kings were able to report to the imperial superiors , in a less arduous  manner.

Originally posted by lirelou<br> lirelou
wrote:


But in the majority of cases, life expectancy increased under the colonial experience, possibly because the economic life of the colony generated higher revenues for a larger number of people. To take Korea under the Japanese as a quick example, the Japanese helped finance and set up the nascent Korean textile industries


I cannot contest that idea. Apparrently, medicine is one of the best exchanges between the colonies and colonisers.  Vaccines in Hepatitus, Pollio, Influenza, and Smallpox were all great leaps forward for the new subjegated countries. However a lot of these countries that recieved these vaccinations  didn't have the plaguing diseases ravage their communities in the first place, a lot of new world diseases were also introduced to colonized countries.

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


They were happy to do so because it benefitted Japan. Japanese textiles were too advanced to find much market in most of Asia, but Korean textiles, rough cottons fit for peasants and workers, found an appropriate market niche that really took off in the WWI and post-WWI period  (Carter Eckhert: "The Colonial Origins of Korean Capitalism"


 i would agree, but their have also been modernized textilles , that are being implemented in different countries without the forceful entry of colonisers. Many countires have harsh working conditions in which many in the populace chose to work for a industry that may manufacture clothes, electronic toys, or porcelin pottery, all due to the aggresive accquired nature of civic citizens to become economically progressive.

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Lots of goods got traded out of the colony that befitted only those within. For instance, Vietnam was a major exporter of very high grade sea swallow nests for Chinese bird's nest soup. This is an expensive product (check your local Chinese market) that had only a small corresponding market in France. And don't overlook the many industries that colonial investors started, or improved.


Thats rivial, with respect to the Fruit Companies, Dutch East Indies,British East india, trade tarriffs, taxes on laborers,Indenturred Servtitude, and basically many rural living indivuals at the climax of colonialism, I am in disagreement that the population beniftted from a particular national industry.
Remember during colonialsm trust Banks and monopolistic companies were not countered with protest,regulated administrations, or Unions as they had not victimized the countries working class  yet. So it is a bit unlikely that the wealth was distributed in an even manner throughout the population.

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


I assume that the general consensus today is that people do have a right to change their residence and seek economic opportunity whenever they wish. Indentured laborers weren't exactly 'shipped'. Rather they entered into contracts in which their transportation expenses were charged to their earnings. I find it hard to fault the British for such a practice.


Agreed, indentured servants in general did enter a contract of agreement to work for a propositioned amount of income in a specific disclosed period of time, there is no foul play here actually. And yes sometimes alot of these indentured servants went to work to in many industries because they had no other means of income. But there were many scandalous and foul play  involved in indentured servitude by the masters or contractors.

Many Irish and Welsh were Indentured Servants, and many other native occupants of countries became indentured servants. And even devious schemes victimized the country through ploys in the practices of indentured sevitude. For example it was known that many Shipyard workers or gangs would kidnap drunken hobos or abduct a transient individual, and place them in ships to work in New World Colonies.33% to 50% of contracted indentured servants died on their way to work in the new world. The living quarter conditions of contracted indentured servants were crude and harsh, it was precursor to the living an working  conditions of the workplace.
Actually before slavery was rampant in the USA many indentured Servants were use dto work on farms. White indentured servants and Chinese weren't as productive, so  when the arrival of African slaves were used to toil on the plantations., they were seen as a btter alternative None the less, indentured servants were frequently abused and mishandled, females were raped, beaten, cheated and they were sometimes killed during their term of time . Indentured servants enetred contracts apprenticeship, many prospects wanted to learn a new trade or skill,so it is reasonable to see why they of many potential employess.

It is hard to discern Indentured Servitude  from Modern day Human Trafficking. Many Shipowners would actually sell of indentured servants when they arrived into the New World. The ship owners often times had the passengers to their disadvantage, and would sell contracts for their work  in markets, sometimes it was no different than slavery. Only the educated and cognascent were able to work out their contracts for their own liking but often times they were underscored by unfair terms in the contracts.

However after slavery was outlawed many indentured servants were used to work in the new world. This happened in colonies such as India, America Samoa,Fiji and Australia. What is not known is that sometimes these indentured servants were stripped of their freedom as they were sometimes abducted, we don't know for sure often it occured.
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


 I find it hard to fault the British for such a practice. This was true for Colonial America, and it was apparently true for India. If you ever visit Panama, and take time to visit the Canal Museum, you can see photos of Indian and Chinese work gangs, along with "Gallegos" (Spaniards from Galicia) and West Indians.

 As you said indentured servants were recruited all over and in Middle age to Industrial Europe it was used as the preferred method of labor discounting peasantry fuedal system. I know of Portugese that were taken from the island of Maderia (if I spelled it right),Chinese and irish were often times transported to foreign countries to do labor. I know cause many in my family have Portuguese ancestry, (and may well as I may have it also),in parents counrty there have been may clashing and fueding with Indians ,portugese, and blacks during the times after slavery.

But nonetheless the laboreres for the construction of the "Panama Canal" faced atrocious conditions. I'm sure the death toll is in the Hundred or thousands for that canal, I know of many Afro-Carribeans who were sent to work to that canal,and I mean many. I think so many were sent that it has left Panama  between the Dominican Republic and CUba for the largest  population of blacks and mulattoes today.

The Canal Construction was proposed by some Frenchmen I believe, and was later constructed by the US,(don't quote me on it), any how the Canal construction was long arguos, I don't see how the population gained from that.

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


I do understand the argument that the products of modern educational systems in third world countries who received low cost education, in effect subsidized education, in their own countries, owe something to their own nation for subsidizing that education. Certainly such countries have the option of requiring those accepted for studies abroad to return home and work within their own government or economies for a certain number of years prior to being allowed to emigrate. But that is a national matter between those governments and their citizens.


Agreed in many examplesthe British Educational system is mimicked by countries in the Carribean and elsewhere but when they arrive in the US or UK their degrees and GPA are downgraded, disposed of.  This is why many immigrants chose to leave their children  these countries for beetr education.

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


I did not say that the "exclusive small elite society" were the only ones who benefited from Colonialization. That is your interpretation. Nor did Turrel. His point was that the nation was paying mroe for their colonies than the colonies were bringing in. In other words, the maintenance of colonies cost France more than France received from them in goods, materials, and trade. Turrel's conclusion, and I concur, is that the major beneficiaries of colonialism were a few civil servants, a few investors, the Military only in the sense that its forces were larger than they would otherwise be, but not easily employable in modern European warfare, and the colony at large.


Did you know European trade increased 25 fold in the bustling years in the ''Age of Imperialsm''.
Whether they did have a hard time maintaining these roads, electric lines, canals, and or buildings were all mostly for the parent countires benefit. Remember the infrastructure designed in a colony were for reasons of just making sure the busineses, industries, and markets were running effeciently.

Now if after World War, France , Britain and other countries vied to relinquish contol of their colonies because it was too expensive, then why did they still keep their colonies? Moreover why did they try to regain them, there is the US tmaintain jurisdiction in the Philipines as they kept naval and air bases after 1946 , there is the Dutch trying to regain Indonesia,Britain trying to keep their control of Malayasia, then there is the late indpendence in Africa who seemed to have countries think they still needed to be colonies.

Mind you, they colonization had helped caused great unrest in these countries, India's Hindus and Pakistani muslims all killed each other, when the Partion of India was set into motion. Then their came the following years of Pakistani  Independence when Banglasdesh was splintered due to the Imperialist tensions.

We could also speak off the disharmony caused by the Mandate of Palestine, which has promised one particular govenrment in the Israel r. Why was there so much reluctance to give Egypt its indepennce. Why also are African countries late bloomers in recieving their inpendence, the First being Ghana in 1957.

If I would to add things up I would say Imperialist European countries were primarily stimualted to colonize due to their seacrh for spices, then other resources were to be sought and strategic outpost in certain terriotires were pivotal in obtaining. We could use the argument of'' Spreading Christianity'' but that was just another excuse and good business.

Things like the great telegraph line, the Trans railroad into Siberia, Suez Canal, Panama Canal, and the Belgian Congo Railroad were great for the countries today but were all used for shipping transporting and mercantile purposes, there were no airplanes back then as you know.

We could also go into details on how some these countires have not left intrinsically due to multinational companies and CAPCOM, AFRICOM and CARICOM operations are still in effect.
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: 10 Jan 2010 at 14:16

Should some of the discussions regarding what is here labeled "colonialism" and "imperialism" (overseas euroean) be extended to the situation before europeans had any "mastery" of overseas territory? In the previous centuries most of humanity outside europe where "subjects" to descendants of foreign rulers, especially of central asian origin. Mughals in India, Manchus in the east and China, Ottomans in the south and east Meditteranean and Black sea regions. Some empires in Africa too, though probably lesser sized.

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: 10 Jan 2010 at 15:25
Naturally, fantasus, it should and has...in fact comparative studies of imperialism date back generations. Of course there is the 1902 diatribe of John Hobson, Imperialism, which merits acknowledgment but not respect since it is the same old tired Marxist model of class conflict and envy. There are the postulates on "periphery" from the 60s maintained by Robinson and Gallagher specially for Africa, but in fact the literature in comparative studies is immense. However, given the ambiance and the opportunity for "Euro-bashing" (which fits in admirably with Marxists melodrama), few consider "ancients" imperialists no matter how efficient they were at pludering and colonizing.
 
But then one can take one's druthers in any polemic as shown here:
 
 
I'm simply posting it not saying I agree with it! 
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: 10 Jan 2010 at 19:16
Aksum, in re: "Now if after World War, France , Britain and other countries vied to relinquish contol of their colonies because it was too expensive, then why did they still keep their colonies? Moreover why did they try to regain them, there is the US tmaintain jurisdiction in the Philipines as they kept naval and air bases after 1946 , there is the Dutch trying to regain Indonesia,Britain trying to keep their control of Malayasia, then there is the late indpendence in Africa who seemed to have countries think they still needed to be colonies."

I really don't know in that I have not studied European politics of that era, except for occasional forays into French politics under the Popular Front, and the Spanish Civil War. My gut feeling, and it is only that, is that post 1918 politics were far more Euro-centric to the point that the colonies were simply shuttled aside in the national conscience, with war reparations, the rise of Fascism, the rise of Communism, and the real birth of an anti-war movement. My suspicion is that the majority of Europeans, upon hearing of political dissent in the colonies, simply view those events with the idea that there had always been some dissention, and the 20s and 30s were no different. They were wrong, of course. Rives and Deroo book on Indochinese in French service ("Les Linh Tap") do note the increased politicization of French workers and troops who served in WWI, and their impact upon indigenous attitudes between the wars.

Regarding increased European prosperity in the late 19th Century, how much of that was the end product of the Industrial revolution? Countries that wanted to modernize looked to the West for services and products. It wasn't just Japan. They merely succeeded better than anyone else by 1894, when a quick war fought in Korea and Mancfhuria brought China to its knees.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
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: 10 Jan 2010 at 20:42

Here I must enter an observation. Respect terminology and the intrinsic meaning of terms. In discussing "imperialism" within a 19th century milieu one can not then make use of the term Mercantilism. Likewise, if you look at the terms of trade and the exchange of manufactures as in

re: Did you know European trade increased 25 fold in the bustling years in the ''Age of Imperialsm''.
 
then such an assertion requires immediate clarification as to just where this development and investment was most intense. Likewise, there were certain unique developments with regard to "benefits" accrued and there the story of the "overseas Chinese" is of great interest. Between 1870 and 1914, the greatest consumer of foreign capital was the economy of the United States, not the vast imperial holdings of the so-called European powers. If one looks at Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in this period then one realizes that the bulk of European capital not directed inward was directed not to India, Africa, nor Asia but to the United States and the Americas as a whole. In essence you had a "second flourishing" of the Trans-Atlantic lines of commerce. Just a mention of names should ring bells: Lever Brothers, Nestle, Bayer, Krupps, Shell. No "imperial power" built the Suez Canal
but instead a projection of the same banking frenzy that developed infrastructure in the United States, Argentina, and elsewhere in Latin America. What was the source of this investment capital? The internal economies of Europe and not the limited economic production of any imperial periphery. Consequently, before casting glittering generalities a look at the actual research and case studies is long overdue:
 
Dorothy R. Adler. British Investment in American Railways, 1834-1898. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1970.
 
Lance E. Davis, and Robert E. Gallman. Evolving Financial Markets and International Capital Flows: Britain, the Americas, and Australia, 1865-1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
 
Nicholas Faith. The Infiltrators: The European Business Invasion of America. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1971.

W. Turrentine Jackson. The Enterprising Scot: Investors in the American West after 1873. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1968.

Leland H. Jenks. The Migration of British Capital to 1875. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1973.

William G. Kerr. Scottish Capital on the American Credit Frontier. Austin: Texas State Historical Association, 1976.
 
Clark C. Spencer. British Investments and the American Mining Frontier, 1860-1901. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1958.
 
Augustus J. Veenendal, Jr. Slow Train to Paradise: How Dutch Investment Helped Build American Railroads. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1996.

Mira Wilkins. "The Free-Standing Company, 1870-1914: An Important Type of British Foreign Direct Investment." Economic History Review, 2d ser., 41 (May 1988): 259-282.

-----. The History of Foreign Investment in the United States to 1914. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989.

And the above is just with reference to circumstance in the United States, but similar phenomenons have been studied for Argentina, Cuba, and Mexico, after all De Lesseps attempted to duplicate his Egyptian adventure in Colombia. As with today, the bulk of trade and profits flowed among the regions with the greatest potential for development within the local economies specially if the dynamics involved industrial expansion.


Edited by drgonzaga - 11 Jan 2010 at 16:00
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2010 at 14:02

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

I really don't know in that I have not studied European politics of that era, except for occasional forays into French politics under the Popular Front, and the Spanish Civil War. My gut feeling, and it is only that, is that post 1918 politics were far more Euro-centric to the point that the colonies were simply shuttled aside in the national conscience, with war reparations, the rise of Fascism, the rise of ]Communism, and the real birth of an anti-war movement. My suspicion is that the majority of Europeans, upon hearing of political dissent in the colonies, simply view those events with the idea that there had always been some dissention, and the 20s and 30s were no different. They were wrong, of course. Rives and Deroo book on Indochinese in French service ("Les Linh Tap") do note the increased politicization of French workers and troops who served in WWI, and their impact upon indigenous attitudes between the wars.


I will concur as the politics within colonies and outside independent countries varied region to region,period to period. Countries like Greece were fully backed by  Western Allied Countries after the collapsing of the Ottoman Empire, France and Britain were at first cautious in supporting King Constantine in his fight against nationalist Turks. We could see how a lot of alliances affected countries  Balkans and Slavic peoples, many times Russia and the Austria -Hapsburg fought and diplomatically litigated between which country  will have complete supremacy in the region. That would of course just mean imperialism affecting a specific immediate close by territory  would be more shock absorbent to master parent countries than the other counterpart countries overseas. Many wars between empires during colonialism may have made many super powers obsolete and therefore affecting its sphere of influence,whilst commencing to conuqer the former territories. Examples could be the Spanish American War, and how the United States took over the Colonies of the Philipines,Guam, and Panama.Then in  Russo-Japense War as Japan commenced its expansion over the regressing Russian Empire during the 1900's.

The  volatality in colonial populations was boiling with tension and some may have been able to pick upon various social construct idealogies, which caused political awarness of both the cololnies own governmental  administration and superior colonial authorities. Indeed , it is ironic many soldiers may have interacted with the populations transmuting different civic attitudes and outlooks towards different individuals. Many overseas migrants coming into countires opening up  new businesses would of also affected the natives job opportunities creatin new occupations.

Overall, Colonialsm (and I mean colonialism in the ''Age of Imperialism'') was probably an after effect of many imperial countries going overseas augmentating the expanding countries  regency overseas to the point that other imperial countries felt constricted and threatened in their own domains. Adding to the fact that many colonies or protectorates had reaction to colonization would be determining factor of the future of their country whether colonized or independent. Examples are China who fought during the Opium Wars, and resisted total colonialization and side effects. If China were to be colonized it would of probably been fragmented. Another example is the terriory of Bostwanna, during the late 1800's  Khame III and Sebele displayed political savvy when they had resisted the Boers enough to forge a treaty the British  that was although detrimental, was still reasonable enough to not feel the full term effects of colonization,enabling a little stability in modern times.

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


then such an assertion requires immediate clarification as to just where this development and investment was most intense. Likewise, there were certain unique developments with regard to "benefits" accrued and there the story of the "overseas Chinese" is of great interest. Between 1870 and 1914, the greatest consumer of foreign capital was the economy of the United States, not the vast imperial holdings of the so-called European powers. If one looks at Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in this period then one realizes that the bulk of European capital not directed inward was directed not to India, Africa, nor Asia but to the United States and the Americas as a whole. In essence you had a "second flourishing" of the Trans-Atlantic lines of commerce. Just a mention of names should ring bells: Lever Brothers, Nestle, Bayer, Krupps, Shell. No "imperial power" built the Suez Canal

but instead a projection of the same banking frenzy that developed infrastructure in the United States, Argentina, and elsewhere in Latin America. What was the source of this investment capital? The internal economies of Europe and not the limited economic production of any imperial periphery. Consequently, before casting glittering generalities a look at the actual research and case studies is long overdue:


That may be true, but it is certain that many countries in Europe and the US alike became mechanized and industrialized also. Of course the United States  was one of many places were it became the immdiate potential market, to sell the new wonderous innovations but there were many places such as England,France,Germany, and Italy that all had become modernized.This would mean exchange between countries in inventions and ideas. Andre Carnegie,Robert Own ,Benjamin Huntsman, and Denis Papin were all inventors in Imperialist Countries, and would of course have colonialist powers and colonies make use of their inventions.
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: 11 Jan 2010 at 15:58
Aksum, in essence what you are repeating are the tired assumptions of Hobson cum Lenin and what I have iterated was a simple recapitulation of the fact that the economic data does not bear their conclusions out. The bulk of surplus investment capital generated in Europe flowed to areas whose own internal dynamism made investment potential attractive. Long before there was an Andrew Carnegie (what "invention" he promoted escapes me) the need for iron came as a corollary to the speculative frenzy over railroads. Just a study of bond markets in the years between 1830-1870 would underscore the actual reality. The transcontinental railroads of North America were built, the fabled Cape-to-Cairo remained a pipe dream. Likewise, the evolution of agrarian extractives appeared rather late [in many instances there were a phenomenon of the 20th century] and often the results of pressures that made development of some sort of income base necessary to maintain the administrative costs of political control. There was quite a difference between the British East India Company and the Assam Tea Company that began operations in 1839/40. One might argue better for Imperialism the Highest Stage of Nationalism rather than any bunkum over capital. Likewise, to mutter on about mercantilism in the 19th century is a clear anomaly. Just look at one simple phenomenon: the transcontinental railways of North America were built the fabled Cape-to-Cairo railroad remains a pipe dream to this very day! Rubber went to Malaya and Cacao to French West Africa (or for that matter coffee to Angola) as serious investment after World War I. More often than not these speculations ended in disaster (think Firestone and Liberia or Fordlandia in the Amazon). When one permits theory to get in the way of critical study of the available data the result is no more than contradictory verbiage.

Edited by drgonzaga - 11 Jan 2010 at 15:59
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2010 at 18:15
[QUOTE-drgonzaga]Long before there was an Andrew Carnegie (what "invention" he promoted escapes me) the need for iron came as a corollary to the speculative frenzy over railroads.[/QUOTE]

Where did I say that railroads were not being produced,prior to ''Caragie Steel Company''. Whether it was iron or steel, doesn't matter. Andrew Carnegie was the first to introduce the first steel manufacturing plant in Pittsburgh, thats what he innovated, my friend.

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


The transcontinental railroads of North America were built, the fabled Cape-to-Cairo remained a pipe dream. Likewise, the evolution of agrarian extractives appeared rather late [in many instances there were a phenomenon of the 20th century] and often the results of pressures that made development of some sort of income base necessary to maintain the administrative costs of political control.


What is your point?  That is another red herring, and really makes no argument. What your basically saying is that since the Imperialist never got to make railroad from ''South Africa to Egypt'' , it broke the heart of the imperialist,to neverr see it happen,Cry .Your next  explanation the imperialist countries not being able to  utilize tge potential of the 'exotic new discovered crops'', as they thought they would, is also hilarious. So no matter if sugar can,maize, and cotton wasn't already profitable i, they still needed to make better use of the crops but just weren't able to materialize. Boo Hoo, poor colonizers too bad the scientific methods of the colonialist countries weren't advanced enough yet to maximize the full potential of the crops.Good one.
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


 More often than not these speculations ended in disaster (think Firestone and Liberia or Fordlandia in the Amazon).


Too bad the imperialist plans didn't go as planned. If a burglar slips off the balcony,makes it such a tragedy that things went wrong while crime. Is it bad that the Colonisers operations also went bad during their duration of occupancy.


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: 11 Jan 2010 at 19:00
Aksum, just some minor points.

in re: "Examples could be the Spanish American War, and how the United States took over the Colonies of the Philipines,Guam, and Panama.Then in  Russo-Japense War as Japan commenced its expansion over the regressing Russian Empire during the 1900's."

Panama was never a U.S. colony. It did not exist until the U.S. intervened in a Colombian civil war to guarantee its independence from that country. In return, the U.S. negotiated a 10 mile wide Canal Zone that effectively created a "little America" within the zone, and a third world country outside. It was a two way street. For instance, the U.S. was obliged to build and maintain potable water facilities for what became Panama's two larges cities, Colon and Panama city, which remained in effect right up until the Treaty returning the Canal Zone to Panama. Certainly the attitudes of many occupants of the Zone mirrored those or Europeans in their colonies of the times; particularly in a feeling of smug, cultural superiority. (Possibly, you meant Puerto Rico?)

Regarding the Russo-Japanese war, it was fought to curtail the expansion of the Russian empire, and was its second defeat in Asia (the first being Chinese reoccupation of the Amur River basin in the 17th Century). The war checked Russian expansion, but it never regressed, as evidenced by the current North Korean-Russian border.

Also, in re: "Adding to the fact that many colonies or protectorates had reaction to colonization would be determining factor of the future of their country whether colonized or independent. Examples are China who fought during the Opium Wars, and resisted total colonialization and side effects."

I certainly don't disagree with your premise that many colonies and protectorates reacted to their status in such a way that determined the future of their countries, I think China is a poor example. The European nations never had any intention of colonizing China. Rather, they recognized its current weakness and staked out zones of interest. The concern was that China would break up, and if it did, then each nation wanted its zone of control. Their problem was that China was too large a target for total colonization, and concerted effort was required to even open up entrepots. Thus they schemed against each other, but generally cooperated. Thus it was not the Manchu court's machinations which kept China independent. Rather it was the enormity of the task to do otherwise, when the only real European interest in China was trade. Of course, Japan's entry into the colonial game changed that part of the equation. Manchuria was considered open for expansion, due to its sparse population. China only claims Manchuria today because the last group to conquer China were the non-Chinese Manchus, who thus added their tribal homeland to China's land mass.


Edited by lirelou - 11 Jan 2010 at 19:02
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2010 at 19:16
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Aksum, in essence what you are repeating are the tired assumptions of Hobson cum Lenin and what I have iterated was a simple recapitulation of the fact that the economic data does not bear their conclusions out. The bulk of surplus investment capital generated in Europe flowed to areas whose own internal dynamism made investment potential attractive. Long before there was an Andrew Carnegie (what "invention" he promoted escapes me) the need for iron came as a corollary to the speculative frenzy over railroads. Just a study of bond markets in the years between 1830-1870 would underscore the actual reality. The transcontinental railroads of North America were built, the fabled Cape-to-Cairo remained a pipe dream. Likewise, the evolution of agrarian extractives appeared rather late [in many instances there were a phenomenon of the 20th century] and often the results of pressures that made development of some sort of income base necessary to maintain the administrative costs of political control. There was quite a difference between the British East India Company and the Assam Tea Company that began operations in 1839/40. One might argue better for Imperialism the Highest Stage of Nationalism rather than any bunkum over capital. Likewise, to mutter on about mercantilism in the 19th century is a clear anomaly. Just look at one simple phenomenon: the transcontinental railways of North America were built the fabled Cape-to-Cairo railroad remains a pipe dream to this very day! Rubber went to Malaya and Cacao to French West Africa (or for that matter coffee to Angola) as serious investment after World War I. More often than not these speculations ended in disaster (think Firestone and Liberia or Fordlandia in the Amazon). When one permits theory to get in the way of critical study of the available data the result is no more than contradictory verbiage.
 
A further example here that I always find amusing is the the American rancher and the American cowboy were primarily funded from Britain. Billy the Kid was employed by an English rancher, but tje only TV western series I remember picking it up was one in which someone like Stewart Granger played an English rancher at odds with an American woman rancher played by someone like Joan Fontaine. But I can't find it on the net.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

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: 11 Jan 2010 at 19:17
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


Panama was never a U.S. colony.


LOLLOL What a good joke!
LOL
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


It did not exist until the U.S. intervened in a Colombian civil war to guarantee its independence from that country. In return, the U.S. negotiated a 10 mile wide Canal Zone that effectively created a "little America" within the zone, and a third world country outside. It was a two way street. For instance, the U.S. was obliged to build and maintain potable water facilities for what became Panama's two larges cities, Colon and Panama city, which remained in effect right up until the Treaty returning the Canal Zone to Panama. Certainly the attitudes of many occupants of the Zone mirrored those or Europeans in their colonies of the times; particularly in a feeling of smug, cultural superiority. (Possibly, you meant Puerto Rico?)


So, it was never an U.S. colony? Actually, that country was invented by Uncle Sam. Confused
Even the demography of the country changed when Sam... I mean, Teddy, imported Jamaicans to build the American canal.

Dead

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: 11 Jan 2010 at 19:35
Let's cut to the quick:
 
Aksum quote:
Andrew Carnegie was the first to introduce the first steel manufacturing plant in Pittsburgh, thats what he innovated, my friend.
Wrong! Whether you like it or not there were other steel producers in the Pittsburgh of the 1870s of which Carnegie's J. Edgar Thomson Steel Works (in nearby Braddock, PA) was not the first. The Homestead Steel Works were far more integrated, production wise, than Carnegie's original enterprise. Carnegie might have been an efficiency expert as well as a great acquirer of other production companies but he did not introduce steel production, which dates from the 1850s.
 
Aksum quote:
What is your point?
 
That evasive question is far from clever, since you have refused to address the original point: where is your evidence for your assertions given the fact that historical data do not substantiate your declarations. It's not a case of red herrings rather the rotting mackerels you've discovered along the rhetorical sea shore.
 
As for your closing remark, florid rhetoric is a rather inane as a critical response. Imperialist plans... bunkum. Or did you not notice the dates? Disingeneous rhetoric with a heavy dose of sarcasm is no substitute for comprehension.
 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
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: 11 Jan 2010 at 20:19
And here I must again enter the fray when ridiculous and uninformed assertions are thrown about, in this instance Panama!
 
However you want to drink your kool-aid makes no difference to me but whether one likes it or not Panama was never a "colony" of the United States. As for "Uncle Sam" inventing Panama, the contention is possible solely through ignorance. Panama as a political entity even predates Colombia and Peru! The first Audiencia y Cancilleria Real de Panama was established in 1538, and subsequently recreated in 1563 and its jurisdiction forever fluid throughout the following centuries. Nevertheless, a nascent "separateness" for this little piece of geography long existed before the advent of any Teddy Roosevelt. Even Spanish Wiki gets it right so enough of this nonsense which is little more than an opportunity for someone to mount his hobby horse so as to plant his disruptive  IEDs. As for any purported "demographic" change--with its invidious racist undertones--Blacks were part of the Panamanian social schema long before the advent of any Jamaican! Besides even in late 19th century terms, it totally ignores the 1881-1889 efforts undertaken by the French.
 
 
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: 11 Jan 2010 at 20:27
Ah, Pinguino, ignorance is bliss.  The U.S. did not 'create' Panama, except in the sense that it guaranteed Panama's existence by positioning its navy to block the movement of Colombian forces into the isthmus to put down the revolt. You could certainly argue that the Panamanian separatists did not merit U.S. support, that the U.S. was in it for their own interests, etc, etc., and you would have valid points. The U.S. never dictated internal policy in Panama. Panamanians ran their own affairs. Was the U.S. administered canal the'elephant in the room'? Certainly.

As for the "Jamaicans", they were hardly the first Blacks "imported" into Panama. First, there were Afro-Panamians from the colonial period, with names like Olechea (a good Euskadi name). Second, many of the French workers were Blacks brought in from the French Antilles. These pre-dated the U.S. effort. But yes, third, the U.S. also contracted with many Blacks who came in from the Antilles. This final group, known in Panama as "Antillanos" was finally granted Panamanian citizenship in the early 1940s. The Canal workers were from all over the world, and the Black workers were from all over the Caribbean. Work gangs included Sikhs from India, Gallegos from Spain, Chinese, and many other groups.

Should the U.S. have had a policy that precluded the hiring of Blacks to work on the Canal? By the way, the Panamanians also passed a law that prohibited Panamanians from working in anything other than a supervisory capacity. Since the San Blas Indians were not then Panamanian citizens, they were the ones contracted to do the menial tasks, like cooking and working as kitchen help. Later, when the San Blas were made citizens of Panama, they made sure that their jobs in the Canal Zone were protected.

Sometimes, it pays to read a little history before commenting on it.


Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2010 at 14:23

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


Wrong! Whether you like it or not there were other steel producers in the Pittsburgh of the 1870s of which Carnegie's J. Edgar Thomson Steel Works (in nearby Braddock, PA) was not the first. The Homestead Steel Works were far more integrated, production wise, than Carnegie's original
enterprise. Carnegie might have been an efficiency expert as well as a great acquirer of other production companies but he did not introduce steel production, which dates from the 1850s.


You did not  read what I posted properly I said, of course ''Carnegie'' wasn not the first to introduce steel production,I said he was the first to  introduce the manufacturing steel production, it is a big difference.In other words he made the effective means of mass producing it

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


That evasive question is far from clever, since you have refused to address the original point: where is your evidence for your assertions given the fact that historical data do not substantiate your declarations. It's not a case of red herrings rather the rotting mackerels you've discovered along the rhetorical sea shore.


I'll do you better how about you prove otherwise, because your counter argument does not substantiate the total analytical facts relative to history and would be rendered rather infactual.

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


As for your closing remark, florid rhetoric is a rather inane as a critical response. Imperialist plans... bunkum. Or did you not notice the dates? Disingeneous rhetoric with a heavy dose of sarcasm is no substitute for comprehension.


Likewise your whole analysis was definitely miscalculated and very indignant regarding the colonies experience and history, you cannot refute  historical facts, and concluding them with opinionated inaccuracies for is just non-historical . Why would the colonizers keep a colony if it wasn't for their own gain they of course knew when to give up their autonomy in a country  at a certain time.  We could speak of the Russians giving up Alaska to the US, the Dutchman  Henry Hudson relinquishing
his rights over New Amsterdam, and the Louisiana purchase sold by the  French. This was because French migrants never settled in the part of North America significantly, as it was used for Fur Trade and other less profitable business.  The French however were more likely  to settle in Canada.


Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


Panama was never a U.S. colony. It did not exist until the U.S. intervened in a Colombian civil war to guarantee its independence from that country. In return, the U.S. negotiated a 10 mile wide Canal Zone that effectively created a "little America" within the zone, and a third world country outside. It was a two way street. For instance, the U.S. was obliged to build and maintain potable water facilities for what became Panama's two larges cities, Colon and Panama city, which remained in effect right up until the Treaty returning the Canal Zone to Panama. Certainly the attitudes of many occupants of the Zone mirrored those or Europeans in their colonies of the times; particularly in a feeling of smug, cultural superiority. (Possibly, you meant Puerto Rico?)


Here  was a very common tactic that Imperialist used towards a foreign territory or country,conquering  the newly accquired territory or lands as  protectorates and colonies. Protectorates were not nearly as different as a Colonies.  Protectorates weren't allowed to sign treaties with countries,negotiate trade agreements, make diplomatic relations, or even control the imports and exports. A good example was Cuba and the ''Platt Amendment'', which was also a protectorate of the US. It was technically never colonized but was used as a base of naval bases as the supplanted the famous Guatanamo Bay there today.

Protectorates pretty much controlled their own internal affairs, but their economic affairs were managed very shrewdly by the guardian countries. But this is really no difference from a colony, how much times do you actually see Britain or France actually delegating in administrations of  the local issues within their colonies with seriousness.

If Panama was not a colony  of the US , then many countries in Asia and Africa weren't colonies either. BunauVarilla the proposed chief engineer of the ''Panama Canal'' initially,staged rebellions amongst the populations of Panama,at the time Panama was part of Gran Columbia. US negotiations with Gran Columbia faltered and violence and unrest ensued due to the US BunaoVarilla's interventions, it did not become independent, it just changed masters from Gran Columbia to teh US.The Free Trade zones were just one of many symptons of US domination, as it was a protectorate.


Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


Regarding the Russo-Japanese war, it was fought to curtail the expansion of the Russian empire, and was its second defeat in Asia (the first being Chinese reoccupation of the Amur River basin in the 17th Century). The war checked Russian expansion, but it never regressed, as evidenced by the current North Korean-Russian border.


Is this during Czarist Russia or when it became the USSR.

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


I certainly don't disagree with your premise that many colonies and protectorates reacted to their status in such a way that determined the future of their countries, I think China is a poor example. The European nations never had any intention of colonizing China. Rather, they recognized its current weakness and staked out zones of interest. The concern was that China would break up, and if it did, then each nation wanted its zone of control. Their problem was that China was too large a target for total colonization, and concerted effort was required to even open up entrepots. Thus they schemed against each other, but generally cooperated. Thus it was not the Manchu court's machinations which kept China independent. Rather it was the enormity of the task to do otherwise, when the only real European interest in China was trade. Of course, Japan's entry into the colonial game changed that part of the equation. Manchuria was considered open for expansion, due to its sparse population. China only claims Manchuria today because the last group to conquer China were the non-Chinese Manchus, who thus added their tribal homeland to China's land mass.


Alright maybe the statement was quite a bit flawed. The Qing Dynasty  fought not become narcoticized by foreign interest. Whether European countries wanted to totally colonize China is debatable but they did indeed want to make China  a protectorate. For it held many potential. China faced may outside threats such as Japan, Russia, Germany,France,  Britain and others. The Qing had circumvented many of the trading in different ports and in the 19th century the Qing  or more or less tried to regulate them. Imperialist countries such as Germany,France, and Britain had vyed to have mining operations, construction of rail roads, and trade agreements in ports to their expected demands.When the Qing collapsed China was already called the Sick Man of Asia, political uprisings resulted. After World War I, the Japanese occupied Manchuria China while, Chang  KaI Shek backed by US interest fought against the Mao Zedong, which might of left China relatively unstable if it wasn't for the PRC determination .If you recall Britain seizing Hong Kong, Dutch occupying Taiwan, and Germany occupying areas in China you might say that the US was good to China in mediating the conflicting directives of both China and Europeans with the ''Open Door Notes'' by John Jay. But this was right after US,France,Japan,Netherlands,Germany, and Italy had just pummeled the Chinese army in Beijing during the Boxer rebellion, which resulted China rethinking its strategy. Thereafter the US decided to be very in  reasonable in negotiating towards China.

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:



Panama as a political entity even predates Colombia and Peru! The first Audiencia y Cancilleria Real de Panama was established in 1538, and subsequently recreated in 1563 and its jurisdiction forever fluid throughout the following centuries. Nevertheless, a nascent "separateness" for this little piece of geography long existed before the advent of any Teddy Roosevelt.


LOL

Sure, Have you heard that many Mexcians in California would also want the state to become its own country or annexed to  Mexico, lets see the if the US would grant them permission to do it.
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: 12 Jan 2010 at 15:57
Aksum, you are growing tiresome. If you did not bother to read the extensive bibliography contradicting your superficial opinions, it is not my fault. If there is a dearth of hard evidence, whose failing that is stands clear to even the casual reader. Then there is the rhetorical runaround  in defiance of what you have actually written. Be advised that the responses entered bear a strong resemblance to the identical gibberish that gets many posters the C of C axe. In fact, rather than respond to the clear documented evidence the entry you posted above does not contain a single reference indicative of proper analysis nor does "your opinion", replete with misapplied terminology and the boring verbiage of ideological rant, qualify as appropriate responses much less rebuttals.
 
Be advised that if you can not respond to the evidence presented with clear and precise documentation do not bother to quote me in your pursuits of ideological fantasies. Learning is a life-long process and already you have taken the wrong direction with regard to scholarly discussion.
 
 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2010 at 22:01

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Aksum, you are growing tiresome. If you did not bother to read the extensive bibliography contradicting your superficial opinions, it is not my fault. If there is a dearth of hard evidence, whose failing that is stands clear to even the casual reader. Then there is the rhetorical runaround  in defiance of what you have actually written. Be advised that the responses entered bear a strong resemblance to the identical gibberish that gets many posters the C of C axe. In fact, rather than respond to the clear documented evidence the entry you posted above does not contain a single reference indicative of proper analysis nor does "your opinion", replete with misapplied terminology and the boring verbiage of ideological rant, qualify as appropriate responses much less rebuttals.
 
Be advised that if you can not respond to the evidence presented with clear and precise documentation do not bother to quote me in your pursuits of ideological fantasies. Learning is a life-long process and already you have taken the wrong direction with regard to scholarly discussion.
 
 


http://www.oup.com/us/pdf/economic.history/imperialism.pdf

The notion of
“informal empire” also applies, conversely, to what Gallagher
and Robinson called the “imperialism of free
trade”: the use of military and political pressure to coerce
countries that were politically weaker and seemingly less
competitive economically into opening their markets to
foreign goods. The main era of this campaign was the midnineteenth
century. It was practiced, arguably, by the
British in Latin America and most especially in East Asia.
Notable examples are the Opium Wars (1839–1842,
1858–1860), fought by Great Britain partly to oblige China
to allow unrestricted imports of the drug from British India,
and U.S. Commodore Matthew Perry’s dictation to
Japan in 1854 of an end to its self-imposed commercial
isolation from the West.

An important feature of dependency theory was the
proposition that the end of colonialism was apparent
rather than real, “decolonization” being really a transition
to “neocolonialism,” in which foreign capital continued to
exploit the local population but with protection from a local
client-state rather than from European officials. This
analysis was built upon in left-wing critiques of U.S. government
policy as well as of transnational corporations
(Magdoff, 1969). Immanuel Wallerstein, in his The Modern
World-System (1974, 1980, and 1989), which covers around
1500–1840, and elsewhere (The Capitalist World Economy,
1979) elaborated from the classic “dependency” argument
in his own “world system” framework.

Equally, that a territory’s economic involvement with a
particular European economy should have increased after
annexation does not prove that this was the aim of annexation.
Trade and investment could follow the flag even when
the flag was imposed from noneconomic motives. The fact
that the area was now a colony presumably reduced transaction
costs for firms from the colonizing country. Meanwhile,
the new colonial administration needed to justify its
existence by trying to attract investment and by raising tax
revenue—which was most easily obtainable via greater
output for the market, and especially for export.




The material and human costs of maintaining political
control were a major determinant of the longevity of empire.
In much of imperial history, European governments
avoided many of these costs by leaving empire to private
(or joint private-state) enterprise. The major form of this
was the chartered company. Such arrangements lasted often
until the company concerned was unable to prevent or
suppress indigenous resistance, at least not without major
subsidy and/or bad publicity to embarrass the imperial
government. The British East India Company was abolished
by the British Parliament following the South Asian
Revolt of 1857, and a similar fate befell chartered companies
in the German colonies in Africa



Finally, rising costs contributed to the end of empire after
1945. For France in Indochina and Algeria, as for the
Netherlands in what became Indonesia, the costs of war
against armed independence movements became unsustainable.
In Portugal, the costs of fighting liberation wars
in its African colonies (including increasingly long periods
of conscription for young men) contributed greatly to the
revolution that overthrew the dictatorship in Lisbon in
1974. Costs were also relevant in the much more peaceful
context of the British and French withdrawal from tropical
Africa. In the mid-1950s, both imperial governments
concluded that colonial rule was increasingly expensive
because it was now politically essential—in the colonies
themselves, in the imperial legislatures, and in the context
of Cold War competition—to be actively “developmental.”
This was expected to entail heavy metropolitan investments
in infrastructure and education in the colonies.
Both in London and Paris, such investments were no longer
considered worth the likely return to the imperial economies
(Cooper, 1996).



Recently, Kenneth Pomeranz (2000) has reemphasized
the importance of empire to the eighteenth-century British
economy. He argues that what finally enabled Great
Britain (and, by extension, the West as a whole during the
nineteenth century) to industrialize when China did not
was that whereas Chinese growth ran into diminishing returns
caused by a shortage of land and fuel, the British
took advantage not only of their own coal but of the availability—
thanks to colonialism—of North American natural
resources. Thus, if the British economy escaped an ecological
bottleneck, an essential contribution was made by
cheap fuel and food from across the Atlantic, as well as by
cheaper raw material for textiles, thanks to the combination
of American land and African slaves.

The Dutch economy derived major benefit from its territorial empire in the nineteenth century following the establishment, from around 1830, of the Cultivation System, under which Javanese were forced to grow selected export crops on a large scale. In the heyday of the system, the 1850s and 1860s, the financial surplus from the Dutch East Indies constituted more than 30 percent of Dutch public revenue; but the system was dismantled during the late nineteenth century under domestic criticism (Brown, 1997). The French economy appears to have benefited, though relatively modestly, from colonies in Algeria and Indochina, though not necessarily from France’s sub-Saharan possessions before 1945. The Portuguese economy arguably obtained net gains in the 1930s–1950s from more systematic exploitation under the Salazar regime—before the gains were swallowed by the costs of fighting independence movements


http://www.michaelparenti.org/Imperialism101.html

Michael Parenti is an internationally known award-winning author and lecturer. He is one of the nation’s leading progressive political analysts.

His highly informative and entertaining books and talks have reached a wide range of audiences in North America and abroad.
The process of expropriating the natural resources of the Third World began centuries ago and continues to this day. First, the colonizers extracted gold, silver, furs, silks, and spices, then flax, hemp, timber, molasses, sugar, rum, rubber, tobacco, calico, cocoa, coffee, cotton, copper, coal, palm oil, tin, iron, ivory, ebony, and later on, oil, zinc, manganese, mercury, platinum, cobalt, bauxite, aluminum, and uranium. Not to be overlooked is that most hellish of all expropriations: the abduction of millions of human beings into slave labor.

http://nhs.needham.k12.ma.us//cur/Baker_00/2001_p4/baker_mr_rl_p4/colonialism.htm

http://www.sparknotes.com/history/european/1871-1914/section7.rhtml

An interdependent world economy developed with Europe at its center. Colonies provided necessary raw materials for the advanced industrial production in European factory centers such as London, Manchester, and Berlin. Capital flowed out of the wealthy nations of Western Europe and into colonial areas to support projects that required heavy capital investment and promised strong returns, such as railroad construction, industrial development, et cetera. London became the financial center of the world, serving as a clearing-house for billions of dollars worth of world-wide investment. Capital became fluid throughout the world, loans were extended for the long run, domestic stock markets skyrocketed and, depending upon the extent of empire, remained somewhat insulated from the boom and bust cycles of late nineteenth century capitalism.



@drgonzaga

I really think your trapped in your own world and really think your outdated views are to be accepted with absolution. Do you really think your dusty sources from  the 50's to 70's is what the the masses of   Asia, Africa, and Latin America think of colonialism. You really need work on emphasizing your points, I heard the joke of the week when imperialism was arduous for the colonizers themselves because  they were not able to build a railroad from Cape Town to Cairo or the didn't extract plants well enough to have a good ''tea time'' in Britain! Hah, please can you do a little better.
Hope the referenceS above helped to enable you on your quest of reasoning.



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: 12 Jan 2010 at 22:58

Again the gratuitous closing with further irrelevance. We were discussing capital and investments in terms of the tired and wrong thesis on the "profitability" of colonies. Do you actually bother to read what you so gleefully cut and paste:

It is questionable whether the possession of empire contributed to economic growth or structural development in the early modern era (to c. 1815). Spanish miners, shippers, and the monarchy and its payroll all benefited in real terms. But the orientation of imperial commerce toward the annual shipment of bullion to Spain was at the cost of inflation-transmitted throughout Europe but highest in Spain--and was associated with (though did not directly or sufficiently cause) lagging industrial expansion in Spain. Even in the Dutch economy, whose relatively advanced market orientation equipped it to take advantage of a trade-based empire, commercial expansion was not converted into sustained development of manufacturing. For France, the overseas adventures of the early modern era contributed greatly to the fiscal burden, which helped bring the ancien régime to crisis.

Then further on in the very same source you quote...
 
That thesis would seem least applicable to the largest empire, the British, because of the British commitment to free trade until 1931. Even so, the fullest quantitative balance sheet of the British empire concluded that the British economy was the poorer for empire, though private investors, especially those from London and from the social elite, were the richer (Davis and Huttenback, 1986; compare O'Brien and Prados de la Escosura, 1999). Davis and Huttenback's analysis has been strongly disputed: their finding of a net loss depends, for instance, on the problematic issue of how much the defense of Canada cost the British treasury. If the calculation were redone to allow for Canadian and other overseas imperial contributions to the British war efforts from 1914 to 1918 and from 1939 to 1945, the overall picture could look different (Offer, 1993). 
 
Obviously, you did not note how the data had to be manipulated (i.e. if economy was the reason for expansion, what then all this talk of profit  in the 20th century). Canada was not Africa and as with the United States an entirely different set of circumstances. Investment in North America and not Africa, the African scramble was not where capital investment flowed and your contentions are but exceptions to the actuality.
 
Before you get on that hobby horse of yours kindly read what you blissfully cut-and-paste. Given the fact that the flow of investment capital in Europe  was the thematic rather than whatever murmuring on "imperialism" or reference to an individual still mired to the Marxist paradigm--because he is not an economist but a political "scientist"--since each time these contentious mouthings are uttered as with this ridiculous statement:
 
Colonies provided necessary raw materials for the advanced industrial production in European factory centers such as London, Manchester, and Berlin. Capital flowed out of the wealthy nations of Western Europe and into colonial areas to support projects that required heavy capital investment and promised strong returns, such as railroad construction, industrial development, et cetera.
 
You simply reflect ignorance of the actual flow of capital and investment within a global context. I can just imagine the volume of trade and investment between German East Africa and Berlin sustaining German industry.Evil Smile Don't you recognize absurdity when you read it?
 
By the way did you not recognize the actual thematic of your first "reference": Dependency Theory.
 
 


Edited by drgonzaga - 12 Jan 2010 at 23:08
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: 13 Jan 2010 at 00:46
Aksum, where do you get your history? Gran Colombia ended when Venezuela, Colombia, and the former Northern Peru (the province of Ecuador) split in the early 19th century. I.e., 1830 as opposed to 1903 for Panamanian independence.

In re:  "If Panama was not a colony  of the US , then many countries in Asia and Africa weren't colonies either."

Sorry, but Panama had far more clout as an independent nation. I've lived in Panama twice for a total of seven years, and actually studied Panamanian history. And you?

And regarding this: "Is this during Czarist Russia or when it became the USSR."  The Russian revolution took place in 1917. That should answer your question.

Finally, in re:  "But this was right after US,France,Japan,Netherlands,Germany, and Italy had just pummeled the Chinese army". 

They never 'pummeled' the Chinese Army. They pummeled the Boxers, who were a throwaway force, allowing the Dowager Empress to plausibly deny responsibility.

Oh, and on the Mexican 'ps' regarding handing California back to Mexico. That is a very small number of anti-US, often "Chicano" activists. If there was ever any real possibility that such could happen, the Mexican-American population would be the most likely persons to rise up and stamp them out. What made California attractive to Mexican immigrants in the first place was its economic development under U.S. rule. The same is true of Texas.


Edited by lirelou - 13 Jan 2010 at 01:02
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
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: 13 Jan 2010 at 00:53

I won't continue posting in this thread, because this topic hurts me, personally.

All I want to say is that the U.S. considered Latin America its own backyard and its property for more than a century, from 1848 to the last invasion of Panama. The U.S. intervined or invaded the region in at least 100 events. In one of those events, the U.S. colaborated with the criminal military gorillas that destroyed my country, killed 3.000 people, tortured 100.000 and send to the exile 1 million of my fellow people, all over the world.
 
With those things in mind, I can't make a fair and cold comment on the U.S. foreign policies at all (I explote in hate, actually), so I won't say more, other than saying that the U.S. has been an imperialist country, at least in Latin America.
 
 
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 13 Jan 2010 at 00:58
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: 13 Jan 2010 at 01:08
Pinguino, I was an on the ground participant in that last "invasion" of Panama, and I can assure you that the great majority of the population were on our side. Even the 'chattering classes' who nitpicked the fact that we did intervene, were glad it was over. How many "pro-Manny" demonstrations have you seen in the last 20 years? 
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
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: 13 Jan 2010 at 01:14
Lirelou, it usually is an exercise in frustration in any discussion when ideologists try to fit history into their models, even more so if it involves someone devoted to Marxism and its scientism. Glittering generalities are flung about with the abandon akin to the tinseling of a Christmas Tree. Even before the American Civil War, British capital flowed like water to the nascent United States and European bondholders essentially "financed" the debt of the individual states and their "economic" projects. Such has been studies ad nauseam always with identical results. What happened in the United States was replicated throughout the Americas and in terms of totals, numbers for the 20th century are insignificant. Nevertheless, the obscure notion that capital investment fueled the late 19th century European expansion [in essence turning an argument generated as a political rationale by advocacy of expansion into fact rather than part of a political rationale] continues its own life because certain individuals mired in the antiquated Marxist perspective continue its iteration. The only difference: an update of the jargon by political scientists playing at being Economists. I wonder if they ask themselves: How is China funding its own industrialization?
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: 13 Jan 2010 at 01:19
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Pinguino, I was an on the ground participant in that last "invasion" of Panama, and I can assure you that the great majority of the population were on our side. Even the 'chattering classes' who nitpicked the fact that we did intervene, were glad it was over. How many "pro-Manny" demonstrations have you seen in the last 20 years? 
 
First, like Saddam Hussein, Pineapple-Face was your American man in Panama, so I don't think anything changed much with the invasion. Now, how many civilians died there, or how much "collateral-damage" (as euphemistically the U.S. army says) was in Panama? Were you informed?
 
The only good thing that came from that invasion was that in order to keep face, the treaty of the return of the Channel was mantained, and at last Panama managed to become an independent country.... To the next invasion, of course.
 
 
 
 
 
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: 13 Jan 2010 at 01:20
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

I won't continue posting in this thread, because this topic hurts me, personally.

All I want to say is that the U.S. considered Latin America its own backyard and its property for more than a century, from 1848 to the last invasion of Panama. The U.S. intervined or invaded the region in at least 100 events. In one of those events, the U.S. colaborated with the criminal military gorillas that destroyed my country, killed 3.000 people, tortured 100.000 and send to the exile 1 million of my fellow people, all over the world.
 
With those things in mind, I can't make a fair and cold comment on the U.S. foreign policies at all (I explote in hate, actually), so I won't say more, other than saying that the U.S. has been an imperialist country, at least in Latin America. 
 
Blaming the United States for the ignition of the tinder laid down by Chile's own internal contradictions and institutional weaknesses is absurd. What happened to the old "blame it on Fidel" argument for the chaos the Allende regime generated within both the Chilean Congress and the Military? The year 1973 is hardly unique as far as military intervention in Chilean governance as a historical phenomenon is concerned.
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: 13 Jan 2010 at 01:25
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Lirelou, it usually is an exercise in frustration in any discussion when ideologists try to fit history into their models, even more so if it involves someone devoted to Marxism and its scientism. ...
 
Frustration? Yes, it is frustration. It is the frustration of lacking the military power to protect our territories, and to have been treated as second class people during large periods of our history.
 
Every Latin American country learn that lesson, and the current strategy of the smarter countries is different. Here it goes, if you are interested.
 
(1) Smile to the U.S.; you don't lost anything been polite with that country.
 
(2) Make trade with the U.S. to maximize the exports there.
 
(3) Never send your own soldiers to the endless conflicts the superpower always have.
 
(4) Buy from the cheaper producer, and avoid to buy from the U.S. as much as possible.
 
(5) Develop. The richer you are, the most the U.S. will respect you and -perhaps- will leave you alone.
 
 
 
Back to Top
Bernard Woolley View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 11 Jun 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 260
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bernard Woolley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2010 at 01:28

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

I think Turrel's point was that the hands the income stuck to were only French in the large minority of cases, but not the majority, and did not justify the amount of public funds spent to develop markets in French colonies. But again, the final justification for underwriting that continual drain on the economy was 'national prestige' and the exportation of French culture and civilization. And Brunschwig finds similar debates in German and British political circles.

I would interject that 'national prestige' was not as ephemeral a quality in the 19th century as it is today. At a time when armed conflict was considered a normal and legitimate recourse, nations that controlled an independent network of colonies and trade routes could negotiate forcefully with their peers and not be frozen out by the threat of having foreign markets closed to them. Colonies could be insurance as much as investments, and in that sense the money spent on them wasn't necessarily lost.

 

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Of interest, the European governments most involved in overseas colonial expansion were parliamentary democracies (three of which were constitutional monarchies).

The following is pure conjecture, but I'd imagine it would make sense for democratic governments to have been especially eager to cultivate large colonial networks in expectation of being denied foreign markets. Governments subject to re-election had the greatest interest in minimizing losses of goods and trade (and consequent disruptions to domestic life) caused by periods of conflict.

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: 13 Jan 2010 at 01:33
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

...Blaming the United States for the ignition of the tinder laid down by Chile's own internal contradictions and institutional weaknesses is absurd. What happened to the old "blame it on Fidel" argument for the chaos the Allende regime generated within both the Chilean Congress and the Military? The year 1973 is hardly unique as far as military intervention in Chilean governance as a historical phenomenon is concerned.
 
Nope. That's history. Chileans know all the complot. We know the coup was made by the fascist local wind and the local militaries, of course. Those were Chileans. But the militaries were under the doctrine of national security, promoted and though by the United States in places like the School of the Americas. Places that not only teached military matters, but also how to torture prisioners and how to pass over the human rights.
 
Everyone knows here the participation of the United States in the coup, and the interest of such criminal minds such as Richard Nixon and his evil adviser, Henry Kissinger. Everyone also knows that the CIA agent Michael Townley put the bomb that killed Letelier in ... nothing less... that Washington D.C., under the orders of the DINA, and with the complicity of the U.S. state itself. If it wasn't that why the United States protects Michael Townley?
 
Chileans aren't naive. We know very well what happened. So much that our reporters have followed U.S. retired CIA agents to the United States itself, and interviewed!! You can't imagine the face of scare and cowardy that those agents have displayed when our reporters have finally located.
 
Yes, I know you don't know that. But if you are interested, just watch chilean TV.
 
We aren't stupid, Dgonzaga. We know what happened and why. In the fight to control the world and stop communism we were just a pawn, sacrificed for the freedom of .... the United States, of course; not ours.
 
And if you don't know who Townley is, read his bio. This is from Wikipedia. I checked it and correspond to what I know about the case. So, there is no fantasy here.
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 13 Jan 2010 at 01:47
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  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 0.102 seconds.