| 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
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 02:09
Pinguin, you give the CIA more credit for those sophomoric hijinxs than any six hour discurso by Fidel in the Plaza de la Revolucion. Cuba certainly had no problem frustrating inane "covert operations"; hence, the question should be why did Fidel survive and not Allende. After all what does a two-bit banana republic have that a supposedly dynamic Chile does not (uttered in full irony, by the way)?
 
You would do well to read the following:
 
Democracia en Chile: Nuevos Desafios para antiguos problemas
Democracy in Chile: New Challenges for Ancient Problems
 
 
So please spare us these diatribes as if everyone were uninformed except you.


Edited by drgonzaga - 13 Jan 2010 at 02:10
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


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 02:19
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Pinguin, you give the CIA more credit for those sophomoric hijinxs than any six hour discurso by Fidel in the Plaza de la Revolucion. Cuba certainly had no problem frustrating inane "covert operations"; hence, the question should be why did Fidel survive and not Allende. After all what does a two-bit banana republic have that a supposedly dynamic Chile does not (uttered in full irony, by the way)?
 
Why? Because Allende was a democrat. A good man after all. Castro is a dictator that shot every oppositor, CIA agents included. And Castro survived because he put Soviet military missiles pointing to the U.S., and in the covered treaty that resolved that missile affair (that almost blew up the world), one of the conditions with the Soviets was to leave Cuba alone.
 
 
You would do well to read the following:
 
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Democracia en Chile: Nuevos Desafios para antiguos problemas
Democracy in Chile: New Challenges for Ancient Problems
 
 
So please spare us these diatribes as if everyone were uninformed except you.
 
So, what's new?
 
A picture for you. The killings of Letelier at Washington, by double agent Michael Townley
 
 
 
Better informed than you on the way your country acts abroad, I am afraid. And better informed about my own country, too.
 
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 13 Jan 2010 at 02:20
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 02:46
Your emotionalism does you a disservice. I do not go around breathing fire-and-brimstone against Bill Clinton for his machinations with regard to the Letelier murder and the "holding back" of continuous efforts directed against Townley. But, such is neither a secret nor some obscure event hidden from public knowledge. John Dinges has been writing about it for years (read; The Condor Years. New York: The New Press, 2003). By the way, it was the Justice Department of one James Earl "Jimmy" Carter that reached the "deal" that gave Townley the out of "witness protection", so don't take it out on Tricky-Dicky given that the perpetrators of the Letelier murder were tried for their crime.
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 02:55
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Your emotionalism does you a disservice. I do not go around breathing fire-and-brimstone against Bill Clinton for his machinations with regard to the Letelier murder and the "holding back" of continuous efforts directed against Townley. But, such is neither a secret nor some obscure event hidden from public knowledge. John Dinges has been writing about it for years (read; The Condor Years. New York: The New Press, 2003). By the way, it was the Justice Department of one James Earl "Jimmy" Carter that reached the "deal" that gave Townley the out of "witness protection", so don't take it out on Tricky-Dicky given that the perpetrators of the Letelier murder were tried for their crime.
 
Now, think. Michael Townley not only killed Letelier but his secretary, a U.S. citizen. If the U.S. hasn't forgiven Towley how much could have been saved? If I don't remember wrong, before that attack very few terrorist attacks had ever happened in the United States, which was avoided of that kind of violence, including during its major wars. 
After that attack, though, little by little, terrorism increased and finally ended with that major disaster that was 9/11.
 
Nobody should play with terrorism, and instead of forgiving and protecting Townley he should have been hunged.
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 13 Jan 2010 at 02:57
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 04:28
Pinguino, in re: "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?"

How was pineapple face "our man"? Because he took money from the CIA? Right, he did everything we told him to. Sorry, but in 1976-77 I did a few months military duty on the Southern Command staff, under then Lieutenant Colonel Marc Cisneros. Everyone was highly concerned about Noriega then, characterizing him as a 'gangster'. How many civilians died in Panama, Pinguino. Hint, the number was in the hundreds, and in 1992(?) La Prensa published a series of articles investigating the burning down of the 'Hollywood" barrio near the comandancia. Lo and behold, two priests running a parish aid center for the poor were interviewed. They described panicked residents running through the streets crying that the Dignity Battalions were setting fire to local buildings. So, collateral damage? Not from U.S. forces action, but rather from the 'Digbats', Noriega's people. You can't get your history from "The Tailor of Panama".  (Oh, in December 1989 former LTC Cisneros was BG Cisneros, commanding U.S. Army South. I had just retired as his Civil Affairs officer, so it was my former deputy who handled all the refugees. And I did travel down there as a civilian.)

Also, the School of Americas torture charge is a joke. So some idiot at the School ordered the manuals for whatever reason. "How to torture" was not on the curriculum when I was there, and I've never met any former instructors from there who said otherwise. The idea that we would have to give formal classes to Latin Armies on 'how to torture' is ludicrous. And Pineapple Puss's attendance at a vacation course for senior Latin officers at the School of the Americas hardly makes him "our man" in Panama. The quality of the USARSA product was directly proportional to the quality of each nation's armed forces. You do understand that the School's instructors are drawn from all Latin countries (less Cuba)? My boss there was an Argentine Marine, his boss was a Cuban-American Bay of Pigs veteran, and his boss was a Peruvian who worked under an American colonel.  

So, Allende was a 'democrat'. Wow. That's not what Chileans on either side were saying in the early 70s. I suppose the MIR were social democrats.
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: 13 Jan 2010 at 09:12


Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

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.


Your missing the main hypothesis, its saying that  the total economic growth aided structural development  was probably not due to the mining resources obtained from foreign colonies.Either way as it says it is not a definite answer.


Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


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). 

Alright once again you chose terrible examples, the whole paragraph clearly suggests that conclusions were flawed and miscalculated. Moreover the last sentence would imply that Britain did indeed benefit from overseas protectorates and colonies.

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


 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.

I never said it was, where did I say that you can parallel both colonies of Canada with the ones in Africa, for obvious  reasons you cannot equate both situations in historical analysis. That is exactly why I said the circumstances were different.  Canada and other commonwealth countries of predominantly ''Anglo-Saxon'' demographics,and had many migrants from the parent aster countries that continued to open up many markets there.

There is a big difference in domestic investment and foreign direct investment (FDI) in a country.  Better yet capital flow in a country is totally different investment. For example you would have companies such as De Beers ,British East Africa Company (BEAC), and British South African Company (BSAC) make a profit in Africa. But just becuase those companies were there does not mean they caused an economic growth for the colonies, they just occupied the countries for their own self interest projects.

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

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:

What are you talking about? You asked for the references and I'm giving it to you, what do you mean cut-and-paste hobby, weren't you urging me to produce a source.  i would of stated what each excerpt meant but I did not have enough time.

Here is the main reason why parent countries did not want to retain mastery over their colonies. it wasn't necessarily because of  markets and industries started to have a downtick in growth and revenue, it was  mainly because of political resistance.




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.


The notion of informal empire also applies, conversely, to what Gallagher and Robinson called the ''imperialism of free rade'': 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

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.


Now here is a perfect example of how the imperialist countries did gain profit from their periphery  territories.


The Dutch economy derived major benefit from its territorial empire in the nineteenth century following the establishment, from around 1830, of theCultivation 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.




Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

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?



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.

Look at again carefully , the paragraph states  imperial countries invested in projects in colonies for reasons they would get back strong returns.

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


By the way did you not recognize the actual thematic of your first "reference": Dependency Theory.


That was your theme, I stated the economic profit was a cause for more territories to become annexed. Quite trying to divert attention, I never said colonies became dependent on mother countries or vice versa. I did however say colonies were required to make all exports under the regulation standards of the ''colonizers''.

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


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.


Naval operations during the Spanish-American War (1898-1901) served to convince President Theodore Roosevelt that the United States needed to control a canal somewhere in the Western Hemisphere. This interest culminated in the Spooner Bill of June 29, 1902, providing for a canal through the isthmus of Panama, and the Hay-Herrán Treaty of January 22, 1903, under which Colombia gave consent to such a project in the form of a 100-year lease on an area 10 kilometers wide. This treaty, however, was not ratified in Bogotá, and the United States, determined to construct a canal across the isthmus, intensively encouraged the Panamanian separatist movement.

By July 1903, when the course of internal Colombian opposition to the Hay-Herrán Treaty became obvious, a revolutionary junta had been created in Panama.José Augustin Arango, an attorney for the Panama Railroad Company, headed the junta. Manuel Amador Guerrero and Carlos C. Arosemena served on the junta from the start, and five other members, all from prominent Panamanian families, were added. Arango was considered the brains of the revolution, and Amador was the junta's active leader.

However you would like to call it Panama was part of Colombia, and BunauVarilla along with constituents staged a coup in Panama to break  the country away from Coloumbia.

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


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?


Panama  was a protectorate,  just as Cuba and Nicaragua,. There were of course advantages to this but there was also very strong oppositions that we may not be aware of due to media propaganda. Would say that Omar Torrijos  Coup De Taut ''Amulfu Arias'', was without reason.of any internal unrest. Panama may have been in better position than  protectorates but it was still controlled and dominated by the US.  A perfect example of the US  intent to maintain hegemony in the AMericas sphere was the ''Monroe Doctrine''.


Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


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.


Indeed, but the Communist state of Russia led by the Bolsheviks was a totally different country than the Russian Empire. Moreover I was refering to the USSR expanding its borders during the internim period of 1917 to World War II when between those periods the Japanese gained grounds in Korea ,Taiwan,Pacific islands and other parts of Asia? Was the Russian Empire expanding its territory then after 1917 when Japan conquered more lands in Asia? No it was a totally different government.Or are  you speaking of the USSR regaining territory in Korea, and even then is it before or after the WW II when the Japanese Empire was no longer the same government of Japan then.

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


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


True, but it doesn't seem that the US was peacefully forthcoming in regards to China duriing the Qing Dynasty. 

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


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.


Thats not the point, your friend Drgonzaga had proposed Panama did not want to be a part of  Colombia during the 1800s because of some opposition. I wonder if drgonzga would recommend  the same freedom to the so called activist chicanos who are part of the largest demographic majority in California.The same Mexican Americans in the US who feel California which was once a part of Mexico to rejoin the country to its former self. The Mexican Americans feel american but feel Mexican more than anything, so they have their own needs. I bet drgonzaga would disagree just for argumeent sake.


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 13:29
Aksum: In re:  "Thats not the point, your friend Drgonzaga had proposed Panama did not want to be a part of  Colombia during the 1800s because of some opposition."

And Drgonzaga is correct. You have to understand that essentially, Panama was the most isolated of Colombia's provinces, and 'overseas' in the sense that travel to and from the Isthmus was by ship due to the Darien peninsula, which was considered a death trap. It was far easier to travel up into Central America by land, and immigration down from Costa Rica peopled western Panama.  There was a separatist sympathy almost from the start, though it only occasionally brokeout into violence. Even the Indians recognized that the Canal would have a major economic impact upon Panama, (Nele Kantule among them) but the Creoles? They were then hoist upon the horns of a dilemma. Send all those revenues to Bogota and remain poor, or keep them for themselves. A no-brainer, as many say. Once the U.S. decided on Panama over Nicaragua for a canal site, geography, history, and Panamanian common sense made independence inevitable.

Also, in re: "I wonder if drgonzga would recommend  the same freedom to the so called activist chicanos who are part of the largest demographic majority in California.The same Mexican Americans in the US who feel California which was once a part of Mexico to rejoin the country to its former self."

As I stated previously, the great majority of Mexican-Americans would oppose any such change. The activists you cite as among "the largest demographic majority in California" are in themselves a minority. Mexican-Americans who travel back to Mexico feel culturally at home, just as Irish and Asian Americans do going back to their ancestors point of origin. But those who spend any time there soon discover why the feet of their ancestors beat a path north. As a Mexican-American friend who now lives in Tequisquiapan puts it: Mexico is a great place to live, as long as you have your money in a U.S. bank and a passport that will get you out. Oh, and the last time he had a slight auto accident down there, with a matronly middle-aged woman, she assaulted him, screaming "You're not one of us. Go the hell back to Texas or wherever you came from." The supreme irony: They both shared the same family name.


Edited by lirelou - 13 Jan 2010 at 13:38
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: 13 Jan 2010 at 15:18
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

As I stated previously, the great majority of Mexican-Americans would oppose any such change. The activists you cite as among "the largest demographic majority in California" are in themselves a minority. Mexican-Americans who travel back to Mexico feel culturally at home, just as Irish and Asian Americans do going back to their ancestors point of origin. But those who spend any time there soon discover why the feet of their ancestors beat a path north. As a Mexican-American friend who now lives in Tequisquiapan puts it: Mexico is a great place to live, as long as you have your money in a U.S. bank and a passport that will get you out. Oh, and the last time he had a slight auto accident down there, with a matronly middle-aged woman, she assaulted him, screaming "You're not one of us. Go the hell back to Texas or wherever you came from." The supreme irony: They both shared the same family name.


What I'm trying to explain is that many naturalized citizens may have different assertions to which nationality they would identify with. Now just because some Mexicans speak about them wanting to adjoin their new country of residence to their country of heritage,does not mean that is what all Mexicans demand,I'm I correct? They are some Mexicans such as Tejanos that anticipate to stay in America and never want to become a Mexican citizen, but that may not be the viewpoint of all Tejanos. Then you might have some Mexicans who want to live abroad and move back and forth from Mexico to and fro. Some may call AMerica home so may call it just an opportunity.But the whole point is they are mexicans who belong to different political groups and have different agendas, one of these  political groups can be called (A) and may want to reconnect the state California to Mexico and group (B) may not want to annex California state to Mexico, when all the while has taken a violent course  to group (A). This wouldn't mean a foreign country should intervene in the matter to grant group (A)'s intention, its ludicrous, this of course wouldn't mean that a foreign country may intervene on the behalf of group (B) and do their bidding, to eradicate group (A). Thats the whole point, with the BuanoVarillo and Teddy Roosevelt intervening in Panamanian affairs. Just because one group of Panamanians wanted to break free from Colombia,doesn't mean other groups had the same political outlook, as many in underdeveloped countries were not aware of political matters.
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: 14 Jan 2010 at 04:49
The viewpoint of all Tejanos is that they are citizens of the United States and have not the slightest interest in being identified as Mexicans. Perhaps you should look at the makeup of much of the US Border Patrol in the American Southwest. A Tejano is born here and the term is just the Spanish equivalent of the English Texan. No Tejano would call himself Mexicano! Nor did Panamenos ever consider themselves Colombianos even in the 1880s. In fact you are showing a blissful ignorance of events in the Isthmus: there were 50 rebellions against Colombian rule between 1821 and 1903, among which that of 1855-56 and 1885 came close to success and by 1899 the Panamanials were already again on the verge of rebellion as Colombia was torn by Civil War. By the way, it was Colombia that asked for US intervention on the Isthmus on its behalf not only in 1855 but again in 1885!
 
As for the tedious long post, one can not posit a theory and then change its parameters to make it "work". In other words, you can not make Edam out of Swiss cheese.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
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 0.109 seconds.