Was imperalisim all that bad for most colonials?

Question

Most of Africa is made up of failed and corrupt states. The middle east is full of dictatorships, only Asia and India seems to have made it on its own. Why then not return to empire and be governed by somebody who can? Algeria was much more stable under the French. The Sudan was stable after Omdurman under the British. I don't think that the Brits could afford a 1895 style empire anymore, nor would the USA want to pay for one. Yet it seems that there was more benefit to being a protectorate of a mother country than being a backward independent.

Answer 1

ASG, your answer contains a smug pretentiousness (e.g.: "your question shows your ignorance about this subject.") that is not only undeserved by your argument but is quite offputting and begs me to respond.

Many of these answers focus on the exploitative nature of empire. joe's reference even called on an African Studies Center that contained scads of quotations and documentation of evil secret documents from the American government and it's role in "keeping down" the "pore and starvin'."

Cold War doctirne was geared toward limiting Soviet influence, and I don't consider this imperialism. Call those actions what they were: a proxy fight in the cold war, not imperialism. The American support of abominable regimes (the "at least he's MY ruthless dictator" idea) is shameful, but is really no worse for the people of those sad lands than the alternative that Stalin and Khruschev offered, for example: purges, Pol Pot, Mao, etc.

So, consider only in this question true Imperial rule, wherein a power assumes leadership of another nation, normally through force. Recall, though, that the Dominican Republic *asked* to become a colony of the United States in the 1860s- President Grant turned them down. More recently Robert Kaplan ("Imperial Grunts", et.al.) describes meeting many people in the Phillipines and South America who hated when the Americans, usually the (gasp!) American Army, departed, since it set up the stooge of the month and his junta to return: the society wasn't ready to run democratically yet..

ASG describes purely exploitative colonies. The Belgian Experience in the Congo is the most garish, and I concede that there were some failures. But so much of the British Experience, and to a lesser extent the French, was geared at holding strategic locations, and to opening up markets. Not as much the German, which was more of a late 19th century Land grab in the Scramble for Africa. Both the French and British set up schools and hospitals, allowed thier colonials to emigrate to the mother country for education and experience, and brought inexpensive manufactured goods and markets for resources and labor that were unused or underused in the colonies. Consider just some of those locations that were longest under British Imperial rule: India, now a stable democracy, save some Marxist flirtations during the Cold War. Kenya, one of the more stable democracies of Africa, South Africa, even with the Marxists running it now, is a stable country.

ASG comments that when the poor get money, they blow it all; when the powerless get power, they are corrupted. This I think is one of the greatest areas where Western protectorship (since Empire is such a taboo term) would benefit the developing world. The long term, multi generational cultural change that will be required to show that there is benefit to good government and rule of Law. It is not imperialism that destroys these countries, as Bruno comments, it is a culture that lacks the flexibility to adapt to a globalized, technological world. Just as China is moving toward Western style economy (which will likely erode the centralized power of the government) with some clanking and wheezing, the slow cultural change of western-style capitalism will bring a porpsperity to the people that can only have good effects for the Chinese. The change towards a hybrid Western culture is HELPING- to paraphrase Churchill, it's not a great system, but it's still infinitely better than anything else that's been tried.

Finally, ASG and Ruegger are incorrect in generalizing enslavement: to enslave a population, or even to keep it down was impossible the Maxim gun might help, but it was still tens of thousands to one. Think of the Indians (Ghandi, for example) who passed their university exams at Oxford. Sadly, the ethnocentrism of the 19th century was rampant in Europe and the United States, and many good men were left in middling positions in government and were blocked out of the highest levels. But they were not "enslaved."

“What enterprise that an enlightened community may attempt is more noble and more profitable than the reclamation from barbarism of a fertile region and large populations? To give peace to warring tribes, to administer justice where all was violence, to strike the chains off the slave, to draw the richness from the soil, to plant the earliest seeds of commerce and learning, to increase in whole peoples their capacities for pleasure and diminish their chances of pain – what more beautiful ideal or more valuable reward can inspire human effort? The act is virtuous, the exercise invigorating, and the result often extremely profitable.”—Winston Churchill

Answer 2

Do you think we should go back to being a colony of England? I doubt it.
Yes many of the states of Africa are in trouble, but that has to do more with the unstable influences of the first world during the cold war. The back room boys of the CIA & the KGB over threw goverments, staged phony elections, financed revolutions in almost every state in Africa and South America.
They had 50 years to manipulate these goverments, it will be 2 or 3 generations untill these countries sort it out.
That is if we can keep the backroom boys out, and thats a long shot.

Answer 3

your question shows your ignorance about this subject. particularly in regards to those african countries you mention. when those countries were created by the british, dutch, italians, and french they were done so arbitrarily. those countries basically just carved up the continent with no thought about the many different cultural and tribal divisions already present. so what happened is you ended up with a situation like rwanda where there are hutus and tutsis who have hated each other for years now in the same country. being in that same country didnt solve any of the long standing issues, in fact the control by the imperialists actually just pushed those issues down. so when those countries pulled out, those issues resurfaced and continue to be problemmatic in many african countries. throw in how those countries were created just to claim resources and how the people were oppressed and enslaved and you have a recipe for disaster when the oppressors leave.

one thing that happens quite a bit when people are oppressed is that when they finally get power they tend to be worse than their oppressors. also its the same when poor people get money, they dont tend to be more generous because they know how it feels, instead they tend to be more stingy and greedy. its the same with those countries, you've been oppressed for so long that when you finally get power you lose your mind a little bit. throw in the long standing ethnic divisions and you have ethnic cleansing or civil war.

my final point is about the suppossed better running of those countries by imperialists. the fact is that they oppressed and enslaved those people. so yeah things were more controlled but the people were way worse off. on top of that, especially in africa those countries essentially raped the continent of its resources and people. how is it that debeers a dutch country has control over most of the worlds diamonds? its because the dutch were in south africa, discovered the resource and did everything they could to keep it and profit from it while oppressing the native people. so really they didnt make things better, they just kept people from making them better for themselves.

you should read some history because i would bet similar points could be made about all of your examples.

Answer 4

A classic argument of whether or not the ends justify the means. If by exploiting a people, you bring them a measure of stability and prosperity, is the exploitation justified?

I say no. People have the right to self-governance. If my country is ruled by a ruthless dictator, at least he's my ruthless dictator. Now, I certainly do not oppose Western nations intervening in diplomatic ways, or even in military ways in order to stop atrocious crimes. But to march in and take over a country simply because you think you can run it better is never justified, even if you can indeed do a better job. The people have a right to choose.

Answer 5

Sorry but no matter how problematic these countries are, imperialism is not the solution. By the way, it was imperialism itself that caused all these troubles to these countries. The Europeans, and sometimes the Americans too, humiliated them, exploited them economically and mistreated them. Divided entire regions without any consideration to the different people living in those areas. Is like pouring gasoline on fire "to extinguish it". Let us not go back to the same stupidity that caused them to live so badly. Ridiculous.

Answer 6

the biggest difficulty became taxation without representation. some thing they seen a necessary British proper (at this factor the destiny individuals seen themselves firmly British). the different facet became non secular persecution do to the best protestant nature of the British State. except for that the British were no longer extremely that oppressive.

Answer 7

You are engaging in wishful thinking. Colonizers enslaved the indigenous populations. That is why they have been forced out.
People all over the world want the freedom of self-determination.
In China they don't have freedom, but they seem to be increasing their prosperity.
In India, most people are dirt poor, but they have freedom.

Answer 8

at least they knew their place...and we could keep track of what was happening in those countries...they have proved they dont know how to govern themselves and play in the world market or affairs...until they can...i say we colonize and dominate them and that way offer them some semblance of peace...

Answer 9

i wonder how much more advanced our culture would be if we had stayed under british rule?

Answer 10

in english please !!