Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

The best/worst colonial host


Recommended Posts

I have always been interested on the issues of colonialism and the conquest of the new world as to the question which European countries were the best/worst hosts whether it came to ability/inability or kindness/cruelness.

Whenever this topic crops up the indisputed winner in Europe on the issue of cruelness is Belgium. Their colonisation, or rather his, refererring to Leopold III, killed millions of Congolese as Leopold totally robbed the country and left Congo with nothing.

Outside Europe hardly anyone disputes that the Japanese are the worst possible colonial masters. If you don't believe that just ask Koreans.

Of course the very idea of "the best" colonial master is like comparing which poison gives you the least painful death. However, the very fact that there are 53 member-states of the British Commonwelath some of them weren't even ever British colonies while there are no such nostalgia-clubs for the former Spanish or French colonies speaks some volumes.

In South-America in countries such as Peru or Bolivia the indigenous population even make the majority of the population. That is not to say the Spanish would have been kind-hearted not to slaughter the entire indigenous population like they did in Mexico under Cortes. They just couldn't do it everywhere.

 

 

 

 

Edited by -TSS-
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, -TSS- said:

I have always been interested on the issues of colonialism and the conquest of the new world as to the question which European countries were the best/worst hosts whether it came to ability/inability or kindness/cruelness.

Whenever this topic crops up the indisputed winner in Europe on the issue of cruelness is Belgium. Their colonisation, or rather his, refererring to Leopold III, killed millions of Congolese as Leopold totally robbed the country and left Congo with nothing.

Outside Europe hardly anyone disputes that the Japanese are the worst possible colonial masters. If you don't believe that just ask Koreans.

Of course the very idea of "the best" colonial master is like comparing which poison gives you the least painful death. However, the very fact that there are 53 member-states of the British Commonwelath some of them weren't even ever British colonies while there are no such nostalgia-clubs for the former Spanish or French colonies speaks some volumes.

In South-America in countries such as Peru or Bolivia the indigenous population even make the majority of the population. That is not to say the Spanish would have been kind-hearted not to slaughter the entire indigenous population like they did in Mexico under Cortes. They just couldn't do it everywhere.

 

 

 

 

Yes, it's all true, sob, sniff, we were the best.

If you wanna get colonized right, phone your local Brit.

Edited by bcsapper
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya there is a french version of commonwealth called the francophonie.  The worst colonizer is hard to quantify, probably a tie between the British, Belgians, French and Germans and Russians.  Sometimes Britain was generous as in letting Quebec keep French as a language, in other situations like in Kenya, South Africa or Australia they genocide the natives.  Best colonizers were probably the turks because they were very multicultural and let the nations they colonize largely keep their culture and religion, but again, even they are accused of genocide in Armenia.  To colonize someone, you cannot really be good.  The heart of colonialism is taking resources from another group by force to enrich yourself, and if they resist, which they usually do, since colonialism is theft, you must kill the target to continue to steal.  So you will find a pattern of genocide, mass murder, mass killings, from all colonialist from Hitler to Elizabeth to Edward, Victoria, Leopold whoever.  Bolivia has just managed to not get genocided so badly because they could never convince enough white people to move into that dreary dull cloudy place in the middle of the continent.  I'd say Arabs and Japs are tied for evil colonizer outside of Europe status.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is something to it that the Brits never failed to colonise any place which they wanted. They just weren't interested in some places. Perhaps they had some vision which places were worth the hassle and which were hopeless basket-cases and better left to the French to struggle with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I saw, the Brits kind of just layed around pretending to be friends with locals, and then try to weaken them and steal their land.  I do know the brits tried to colonize haiti and that failed when they got their butt beat and they got ran out of Jamaica as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting excerp from an article I found on the subject:

 

"14 African Countries are Still Forced Nowadays by France to Pay Colonial Tax for the Benefits of Slavery and Colonization

 80% of the 10 countries with the lowest literacy rates in the WORLD among adults are in francophone Africa.

 Namely: Benin (40%), Burkina Faso (26%), Chad (34%), Côte d’Ivoire (49%), Guinea (29%), Mali (23%), Niger (29%), and Senegal (42%).

 This spectacular result is achieved after over 150 years of French colonization!



 During the almost 200 years of French colonization in Africa and Asia, France has built only ONE university in their entire colonies.

 It was in Indochina.

 After 150 years of French colonization of CAR (Central African Republic) there was only ONE person with a PhD degree when the country became independent in 1960.

 However, France continues to collect rent on the colonial buildings they have left in these countries, and 14 African countries are still forced nowadays by France to pay colonial tax for the benefits of slavery and colonization.


 Imagine the US still paying RENT to the British for the White House for instance, or Russia to collect rent from the vast public housing they have built through eastern Europe during soviet union occupation."
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The best/worst colonial host

The best/worst colonial parasite is the correct title for this thread. The OP should be discussing the relative friendliness or hostility of the colonized not how nice or mean the colonizers were.

Sorry but this thread is just plain ridiculous.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

I read Trevor Noah's book recently. When he was a kid he had friend named Hitler. Apparently this was not an unusual name in South Africa, as were names like Mussolini and Napoleon. Under apartheid, black South Africans had to have a European name as well as African. He makes the point that they didn't know much about Hitler except that the Europeans were in a real snit about him and even had to get black folks to help fight him, so he must be some mean SOB. If you asked South Africans who they would have liked to lynch most, Cecil Rhodes would come way before Hitler, as would King Leopold to Congolese and  Christopher Columbus or Andrew Jackson to native Americans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements



×
×
  • Create New...