Why? I'm enjoying this. ;)

Of course Stalin, Hitler and other nasties where not democratically voted in, however
all of them could have achieved power non-violently and all of them could have been
ousted from power non-violently if the will of the people is strong enough.

No. Why don't you ask Russians themselves if they found serfdom during the Czar a better option to socialism. I mean, it's their issues that we little Finns are discussing here, right?

Everyone can have plans, it's what actually happens that matters.

Skybird,

the whole Stalin vs. British empire - debate started from your denigration of Gandhi and his non-violent ways. It's kind of interesting that on the other hand you seem to appreciate Buddhism which also claims to be a non-violent religion.

No, not really. Hitler didn't have command and the Nazi doctrine didn't become the official political philosophy of the German people until January 30, 1933, when Paul von Hindenburg stepped down. So really, the 1932 statistics are not important here since Skybird's point and your agreement was There certainly was no unemployment under the Nazis, and the industry boomed . . .

Not sure I was understood exactly and I was precise enough.

Their was bitter crisis in Germany in the beginning of the Nazi movement. Hitler started to successfully tackle it, and over the years he brought unemployement down, and families were fed again, since short time before the war broke out until the introductory phase of it was over. This is what I meant when saying there was no unemployment under the Nazis. Hitler used the worse situation caused by Versaille to become popular by ignoring and avoiding rules of the treaty and improving the detoriated situation.

That all that had it's price, goes without saying.

no offense, but that's bollocks. that's exactly the argument that the brits used to justify their colonialism -- the whole "white man's burden." It implies that until the Europeans arrived, nowhere in Africa or India had any sort of government or civilization.

And by the way, the Brits and the Germans managed to kill Africans and Indians wholesale. But I guess being shot to pieces by a Mauser or a Martini-Henry beats being killed with "clubs and axes."

The fact remains they are still using the legislature and bodies of goverment that the Europeans introduced.

Don't try to paint black and white here. I am npot in that "white man's burden" business. What I point at, simply is a historical truth - althoug for reasons of political correctness and always bashing at that totally, completely bad colonialism that gets comfortably ignored today. but it is true that in many places where the british arrived, the Pax Britannica established an rlative order or stablity and peace that before was not known, and that they brought end to generations-long bloody wars between tribes. This does not minimises the violent excesses they sometimes launched themselves. There is also no doubt whatever that in many places after the British left, violence broke out again thats ome times rslted in genocides of biblical proporations, and displays of incredible, horrific acts of brutality and bloodthirsty barbarism. and only in some places that is becasue of artifical border drawn on maps that forced ethnicities and tribes to live together that before Britsh rule were living separately.

Not black and whiter painting, please. It needs to be seen with some more discrimination (? differentiation), really. I know quite some places in Africe that would be better off today with the British still ruling. And there are some bloodsheds going on to which the British acts of violence fade in size and cruelty.

For this hiostoric argument I sometimes have said in threads that if only America would use it's power more objectively and less egocentrical, a Pax Americana eventually could be a blessing for the world. I criticise america a lot - but that does not change that I nevertheless stand behind very many of it's basic principles as they have been formulated or formed out in their optimum idealistic form. In other words I criticise the gap between ideal and reality, the distortion and violation and the forgetting of these ideals - and not the ideals themselves. In that form they are an utopia, probably, and maybe never will be reached. But that does not change their nobleness and attraction (nor does it form a right or a need to aggressively impose these on others even if they do not want them).

Peace was imposed by force of arms, rather than by reaching an agreement satisfactory to all sides -- that's not a problem in and of itself. "Relative peace and stability" -- true enough, but at what cost? Exploitation of the locals, repression of their cultures, to say nothing of the lives lost. If colonialism was such a boon to the peoples of Africa and the Indian subcontinent, why all the struggles for independence?

You paint a picture of colonialism as some forerunner to a UN peacekeeping force -- when in reality it was economic exploitation justified by racial denigration.

And "incredible, horrific acts of brutality and barbarism" occured all over the world, even in "civilised" Europe. And they're still happening today.

I'll assume you're not patronizing me. I'm not painting history in black and white, I'm quoting your statement (the original statement, without your later expostition) directly, and saying that it echoes exactly the sentiments of modern-day "colonialists" who say, "colonialism wasn't that bad" based on, well, ignorance.

Yeah, sometimes my friends and I from ex-colonies say the same thing. But when it comes down to it, no-one means it -- no offense, but we'd rather manage our own affairs than have some clown who wasn't good enough to get a job in London come over and dictate policy. Even if our own management sucks.

I guess I have a different view of colonialism. Was taught one version of history at school in the UK, learned another in the ex-colony that I'm originally from. And just because one viewpoint differs from yours, doesn't make it "political correctness."

Im not a fan of British colonialism by any means, but im not talking about Australia or America.
I have always stated, when acccused as racist, that i dont care if your blue or green in colour, but cultures/civilisations are not equal in my eyes.

Ofcourse its subjective, i know the cannibals feel they are right also.
I dont think we have to take this culture by force to anyone, but we also must protect it from others.

If it is a fair, objective peace, that is okay. I do not ask a terror regime for permission whether or not I am allowed to pacify its country, if the people wants that and I have the means to achcieve that. The US attack in Iraq was illegal because it was not wanted by Iraqis.

Indeed, much of it was just that. However I insist on seeing it more differentiated. Even with these things being true, some regions were better off with the British, than they had been before, or afterwards. I have a hard time to see that independance alone justifies the genocide in Rwanda a decade ago, when people literally were hacked into pieces, women were raped to death and babies saw no mercy as well. I have no problem seing a strong foreign military presence and political ruling of the country being the superior and much more civilised solution to what has happened then.

Europe is ahead of several global regions concerning lrevels of civilisation, in fact it is so highyl-developed that not the high level is reversing into it's opposite, a carricature and exaggeration of such values. however it's years of heavy violence and barbarism are over since longer time now. whet5her or not there is a chance that they will return, is something different, I could imagine scenarios where this will happen. Things like the Balkan wars in general do not change the fact. However, at the time we write this, people gets slain with machetes in Darfhur, and until some days ago the prospect to contribute to the statistic of millions killed in the genocides in Kongo by you own body, for many people was a realistic perspective. show me where you see comparing events in North, Central, Southen or Western Europe.

You just answered your own question from earlier, "why all the struggles for independence?"

In no way I say or said colonialism is fun or was great, and I do not engage in the philosophical legitimations of it that were given for by those propagating Western ruling of the world. Just say that by it's effects it brought not only darkness, but both light and shadow to many regions, and some of them are taking profit from that until today. I also do not defend napoleonic aggression, but as a matter of fact the French brought some administrative organisation to german cities that had a positive effect and are being copied until today, while the Code Napoleon is still valid in France until today.

Just curious, where are you from? Some African country, I understand, probably northern or central Africa, I assume, since Islam is more spread there than in the South.

I think this why the Shaolin monks learned how to kick some serious butt...:D

fair enough.

btw, i'm from sudan originally, born and raised in the uk, also spent time (several years each) in saudi arabia and the usa. actually, i'm off to south africa in a couple of days.

First of all it was the Western colonial rule of Rwanda that created and hightened the tensions in the region. Secondly there was a foreign military presence in Rwanda, the UN, but they fumbled the ball and were wholly unable to stop the genocide. Of course this hasn't stopped the UN leader of the troops in Rwanda to parade around as some kind of hero since.

There cannot be many mountain tops, only one. Europe has throughout it's history achieved it's position of power by standing on the shoulders of others. Are you saying that Africa should do the same thing and send Europe into a centuries long cycle of powerty, disease and famine?

Europe has achieved its position because of its culture.
For poverty, disease and famine, Africa didnt need any help.