Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980
(Post 1273605)
The Colonialism debate somehow(lol) got started on here.Someone else pointed out, look how former colonies are doing now, most are third world and all the problems that come with it and not "free", prob would have been better off to stay under the Brits.
|
Well
now that we look back at it seems they would have been, but that's also not noting that a lot of these countries that were colonized already had stable, well-formed governments running in them before someone else came along and decided
"We're your sovereigns now. Deal with it.". India is a perfect example. The Marthans and Mughals and Sikhs had for centuries ruled over it and made it one of the most successful countries in the whole of Asia, moreso in many respects than China. Then the French and British began trading with it, there were disputes over who owned what, and eventually the British took over the entirety of it, reducing French influence to a near nonexistent level.
When the British were unable to control it any further (due not only to civil unrest but also the fact that their "empire" was gradually declining in capability because of the severe after effects of both World Wars in such rapid succession- speaking strictly on economic and military grounds-- which had forced them to relinquish lands to their former and rightful owners in favor of the homeland's well-being) and the people finally did gain the independence they had previously had 150 years before that, they were basically left with nothing but what they had- which didn't amount to much by that time; not to mention the confusion and mass dissent which is always a factor to show up when a nation is created or reformed drastically. The result of these things was civil war (excluding the effects on literacy and such), and now we have India AND Pakistan. If the British had just left the Indians alone and acted as a responsible and fair country, negotiating honest trade agreements, none of this would have happened in such a way.
Many will argue that it was their own faults, despite the fact that they were forced to be subjugates to a foreign nation and had what was in the first place rightfully theirs taken. And yes you will get further arguments when this point is made that that
"Well- colonialism brought the savages all these wonderful new things, like democracy, railroads, etc." That's true, but does that justify the colonist nations' actions, which were motivated by nothing more than greed and yearning in the first place? Hardly. Furthermore, what good do these things do them if they're treated like dirt and driven about like cattle, not given the same equal treatment as their "sovereigns"?
The fact is, the British, French, Germans, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, ALL of these nations that practiced colonialism just wanted to take over these lands that had natural resources on them for their own benefit, and they didn't care at what cost (immediate and future). Nor did they even
try to consider what the effects would be given any number of possible future scenarios they might face. But it's not just India or Pakistan. It's also places like South Africa, Jamaica, Nigeria, Sudan, New Guinea, Malaysia, and the Congo. Countries like Egypt, Australia, and New Zealand however have done very well compared to their peers since they were given independence, though.
