Conquer Club

The Great & Powerful Wizard of Oz wrote:Where I come from, we believe all sorts of things that aren't true. We call it "History".

A man's called a traitor - or liberator
A rich man's a thief - or philanthropist
Is one a crusader - or ruthless invader?
It's all in which label...is able to persist.

Luns, Guis, I'll try to keep what you both said on page 6 in mind.

Jenos Ridan wrote:Luns, Guis, I'll try to keep what you both said on page 6 in mind.

Gracias, amigo!

Within the context of how history is viewed, I was wondering what everyone's general view was on colonization. Was it necessary for a time, and has now run it's course? It should be interesting to see how different schools of history treat it.

Its was good for globalization and capitalism, it has run its course.
It was bad for the natives thats for sure

A sad fact recorded in the histories of all nations and peoples involved and commented on even as it unfolded.

From a strictly material viewpoint, it was inevitable that a handful of nation would rise to global status and dominate it for a time. In this rather nietzschean worldview, it doesn't matter if the action was 'right' or 'wrong', it was what had to happen, lest the empires withered on the vine and progress halted.

Conversely, a better point of view would say that, at the time, men did not care about the welfare of their fellows, only personnal possessions and wealth. Has that fact changed? Not really. Will it ever change? Not without affecting the defincion of certain freedoms. Is it going to get worse? Not likely, but one can never be too vigilant in this regard. It was a sad time in world history, but its effects are reaching their end as new issues arise from the sidelines.

Not a historian, but a theologian, so I'll weigh in anyway. Interesting note, you could argue from Ecclesiastes that the Cyclical view is Biblical, and you could say from certain verses in James that the Marxist school is Biblical. I'm sure that if you looked hard enough you could find support for both the progressives and the historicist's point of view in the Bible, so an honest Biblical view has to take all of those into effect, without selling out to any of them.

beezer wrote:Within the context of how history is viewed, I was wondering what everyone's general view was on colonization. Was it necessary for a time, and has now run it's course? It should be interesting to see how different schools of history treat it.

Anarchist wrote:Its was good for globalization and capitalism, it has run its course.
It was bad for the natives thats for sure

I'm always torn about colonization. It was inevitable, no doubt, and a lot of people did a lot of bad things while it was going on. That being said, in the long run, I'm not sure that the natives had it any worse than they would have otherwise. For instance, you you rather live in India or in a remote & primitive mountain village in, say Papua New Guinea.

MR. Nate wrote:[...] and you could say from certain verses in James that the Marxist school is Biblical.

Interesting, which ones?

I'm no expert on Marx, but some these appear to move in that direction.

James 1:27 - 2:7
(New International Version)
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?

i would have to say that i have heard on many occasions from one of my professors the relationship between marxist ideals and critical theory of religion, which certainly included christianity. In fact, in his own personal opinion, CTOR (critical theory of religion) especailly in todays world, was to take on the notions laid out in part by the social gospel and carry on the torch, as many of his school of thought believe the church has by in large failed in this respect.

However this is not to suggest he did not believe that marxism and christianity were not in fact connected in many senses.

Colonialism was of course as far as i can tell a necesary product of mercantilism, and its difficult to say in retrospect that anyone from todays era would have been more empathic toward the colonized than anyone in that era.

MR. Nate wrote:I'm always torn about colonization. It was inevitable, no doubt, and a lot of people did a lot of bad things while it was going on. That being said, in the long run, I'm not sure that the natives had it any worse than they would have otherwise. For instance, you you rather live in India or in a remote & primitive mountain village in, say Papua New Guinea.

The problem with this view is that it only considers the 'surface' aspects of colonialism, as it were. If we look at the benefits brought to at least some areas, for example India (I'm thinking roads, schools, judicial systems etc.) then it is certainly easy to take this view, even taking into account the gross abuses suffered (massacres, the denial of even basic rights...)

However, we need to turn to post-colonialism if we are to really consider all angles. An immediate example of immense post-colonial problems was that of the partition of India. Would you 'trade' the benefits given to the Indian subcontinent for the genocide suffered because of partition, a direct result of colonialism? And the ensuing instability and conflict of areas like Kashmir? I for one would rather live in Papua New Guinea in a native tribe than to unleash such things on the world. Another example is the current state of most of Sub-Saharan Africa. The mass poverty, corruption, genoicde... All of this has its roots in colonialism. We built roads but we also brought guns and created demand for resources which could be fought for and controlled.

Guiscard wrote:

MR. Nate wrote:I'm always torn about colonization. It was inevitable, no doubt, and a lot of people did a lot of bad things while it was going on. That being said, in the long run, I'm not sure that the natives had it any worse than they would have otherwise. For instance, you you rather live in India or in a remote & primitive mountain village in, say Papua New Guinea.

The problem with this view is that it only considers the 'surface' aspects of colonialism, as it were. If we look at the benefits brought to at least some areas, for example India (I'm thinking roads, schools, judicial systems etc.) then it is certainly easy to take this view, even taking into account the gross abuses suffered (massacres, the denial of even basic rights...)

However, we need to turn to post-colonialism if we are to really consider all angles. An immediate example of immense post-colonial problems was that of the partition of India. Would you 'trade' the benefits given to the Indian subcontinent for the genocide suffered because of partition, a direct result of colonialism? And the ensuing instability and conflict of areas like Kashmir? I for one would rather live in Papua New Guinea in a native tribe than to unleash such things on the world. Another example is the current state of most of Sub-Saharan Africa. The mass poverty, corruption, genoicde... All of this has its roots in colonialism. We built roads but we also brought guns and created demand for resources which could be fought for and controlled.

Still an avid guiscard supporter

Personally I would love to live in pre-colonial India,South America,and North America. (in that order) further back we go the more I would probably like it.(Will miss toilets though)

again less well informed than guis i would have to say that part of the issue when we look back to colonialism is that it does in fact set the wheels in motion for things that we still dont have great answers for. Especially when looking at africa, there are numerous problems today, and will continue to be so because of the european scramble for territory with complete disregard for the people there. And things were pretty horrid once they got there *for a decent read on one case id recommend King Leopolds Congo*. Also we find that as countries began to achieve independence in the decolonization and post colonization era, they were ill suited to pay off the debts from the colonizers...which is an issue that is very relavant to the current globalization system.

There are just a lot of things that really become problematic as a result of colonization and make a lot of good points as to why it wasnt necesarily all that great of a period....and i dont even really touch on all of the deaths directly as a result of colonization in this post.

Anarchist wrote:Personally I would love to live in pre-colonial India,South America,and North America. (in that order) further back we go the more I would probably like it.(Will miss toilets though)

Then you're an idiot. You get ill you die. Child marriages (pre-puberty) are acceptable in some cases. Bride burning, stoning to death of women and suchlike? No.

No offence, but don't be silly. The western world has a hell of a lot of benefits... Its just those that don't live in the west who suffer from post-colonialism. Development hasn't been on a globally equal basis.

Guiscard wrote:
No offence, but don't be silly. The western world has a hell of a lot of benefits... Its just those that don't live in the west who suffer from post-colonialism. Development hasn't been on a globally equal basis.

pretty sensible all the way through.

Guiscard wrote:Then you're an idiot. You get ill you die. Child marriages (pre-puberty) are acceptable in some cases. Bride burning, stoning to death of women and suchlike? No.

Agreed on the development.

I never specified which culture I was refering to, I dont support any of those forms of extremism(many caused by religious views) and would dedicate my life to ending them. You assume the negative of my statement, without viewing the positive societies that existed throughout that era. Positives that were destroyed. If I wanted to live in a backwards society I would move to the middle east, no need to travel back in time for that!

Granted there are advantages to living in the modern west, but I do not rate our materialism as high as you do. There are positives to both, I just wish to experience the positives in the past.

That was a very emotional outburst Guiscard, something bothering you?

Guiscard wrote:. Would you 'trade' the benefits given to the Indian subcontinent for the genocide suffered because of partition, a direct result of colonialism? And the ensuing instability and conflict of areas like Kashmir?

I'm not arguing that colonialism or post-colonialism are somehow are superior, but a lot of the problems that are "inherent" with them are less about colonialism and more about human nature. I am not so naive as to believe that regional instability, conflict and even genocide are somehow the product of the western imperial mind. It is (in my opinion) more a product of human nature. So all of these problems would eventually appear whether there was colonization or not. That' s not to say that it would have developed along the same paths, but lets not forget things like tribal warfare, cannibalism, slavery & human rights abuses that exist in PRE-colonial societies.

Agree, though couldnt the "western imperial mind" be caused by human nature?

Anarchist wrote:Agree, though couldnt the "western imperial mind" be caused by human nature?

the dangerous thing about human nature....is that it tends to be a covering catch all for a lot of things that we should not really be tolerating or in favor of. I personally dont think we should attribute a lot of the costs and crimes of imperial type movements as simply human nature, because it is not the total of human nature, and typically it seems that human nature is taken to mean something that we really have little to no control of. To do perhaps continues us down the type of road where people will someday look at our crimes and go...they were simply human nature.

I'm generally of the opinion that human nature is bad, and getting worse. What I'm trying to say is that my anthropology leave me torn on the subject of colonialism. There are greater goods and greater evils that accompany it, so it's difficult for me to say definitively whether it was a positive or negative development. Western thought tends to make things more efficient & systematic. That means that hospitals, wealth and learning occur much faster, but so do genocide, war & slavery.

MR. Nate wrote:Not a historian, but a theologian, so I'll weigh in anyway. Interesting note, you could argue from Ecclesiastes that the Cyclical view is Biblical, and you could say from certain verses in James that the Marxist school is Biblical. I'm sure that if you looked hard enough you could find support for both the progressives and the historicist's point of view in the Bible, so an honest Biblical view has to take all of those into effect, without selling out to any of them.

This is perhaps the best description of a Biblical viewpoint ever.

got tonkaed wrote:

Anarchist wrote:Agree, though couldnt the "western imperial mind" be caused by human nature?

the dangerous thing about human nature....is that it tends to be a covering catch all for a lot of things that we should not really be tolerating or in favor of. I personally dont think we should attribute a lot of the costs and crimes of imperial type movements as simply human nature, because it is not the total of human nature, and typically it seems that human nature is taken to mean something that we really have little to no control of. To do perhaps continues us down the type of road where people will someday look at our crimes and go...they were simply human nature.

understandable, however human nature is a religious term.
The human nature is irrational,fallible,emotional, and based on attachment
A spiritual nature represents unattachments,and is more driven by higher understanding.

Human nature is part of the human condition that religion is supposed to teach us how to overcome.(unfortunately most religions submit to human nature)

granted were heading off topic, but the philosophy is that all the worlds problems originate by our human fallibility while our spirituality is the part of us that is complete, only tainted by our human existance/interferance.

... ...

...

... ...

...

... ...

... ... ... ... ...

















AAAAAAH! why can't I Understand this conversation!!!

Perhaps, I should clarify. I meant (at the risk of betraying my theology, oh wait, never mind you all already know) FALLEN human nature. I don't regard evil as a necessary property of human nature, simply a common property. Anarchist, I think you're mistaken on "all religions" Many do have an element of Platonic dualism, but I think a properly understood Biblical theology allows for both the physical and the spiritual to be either good or bad.

All that being said, I apologize for accidentally threadjacking an excellent conversation. I'm curious if there is more than one person who would ascribe to a feminist interpretation / methodology. And if Caeli is the only one, perhaps she could weigh in again?

MR. Nate wrote:

Guiscard wrote:. Would you 'trade' the benefits given to the Indian subcontinent for the genocide suffered because of partition, a direct result of colonialism? And the ensuing instability and conflict of areas like Kashmir?

I'm not arguing that colonialism or post-colonialism are somehow are superior, but a lot of the problems that are "inherent" with them are less about colonialism and more about human nature. I am not so naive as to believe that regional instability, conflict and even genocide are somehow the product of the western imperial mind. It is (in my opinion) more a product of human nature. So all of these problems would eventually appear whether there was colonization or not. That' s not to say that it would have developed along the same paths, but lets not forget things like tribal warfare, cannibalism, slavery & human rights abuses that exist in PRE-colonial societies.

The problem with this view is that the problems you speak off are accellerated by colonialism without developing the faculty to deal with the issues. We don't see the same poverty, hunger and genocide so much in the western world because we developed the resources and the mindset to cope with these aspects of human nature. The destructive cultural componants were forced upon these societies before they had the chance to evolve structures, for example governmental practices, a regulatory cultre etc. etc. with which to deal with these issues. We manage competition for resources in western europe better than they do in Africa because we have structures of trade, industry and economy within which we can function without resorting to violence.