Posted on 12/18/2013 7:30:18 AM PST by Paladins Prayer
1) To women: the decent guys you rejected in your early 20's (because they weren't exciting enough) got married to women who appreciate them.
2) To blacks: white people don't hate you. You can be certain of that. If white people hated you as much as you claim, you would all be dead.
Technology can have a liberating influence on people, making it harder for kings and emperors to rule over them.
Keep in mind the technological innovations that changed Europe around 1500: gunpowder, steel-tipped arrows that could pierce armor, printing presses that could disseminate ideas among the common people, sailing ships that could travel over deep and stormy oceans more easily (and could allow people to trade with distant lands, outside the reach of the king's tax collectors).
I had a buddy who was flying out of Kinshasa once. He was sitting next to the entrance door. A black American Peace Corps volunteer boarded, leaving Zaire after his two year assignment.
As he boarded, he turned in the doorway, shook his fist at Zaire and said, “I am so glad that someone sold my great, great, great, grand-daddy into slavery!”, turned and took his seat and ride back to civilization.
All true. However, it is reasonable to point out that political centralization/absolutism increased in Europe from 1500 to at least 1800, with things (outside of UK and a few other countries) not loosening up till after 1850.
The upper classes as a whole had less clout in 1800 than 1500, but kings and emperors had a lot more.
Little known fact. In the English Civil War, younger aristos and intellectuals tended to support the King. It was just assumed that absolutism and autocracy were the “way of the future.” The Parliament was seen, incorrectly as it turned out, as fighting an inevitably doomed rearguard action.
Somehow I doubt Russia has contracted THAT much since 1990. Unless possibly they are comparing USSR to Russia.
Actually have read it. Will have to check it out again, I guess.
Or, to go back to the grandaddy of all empires, how badly did the Roman colonies fare after their annexation? Yes, they paid a tribute to Rome — sometimes a steep one. But in return they purchased protection from their enemies, Roman technology, and the stability of an encoded system of law. Far preferable in my book to subsisting on whatever you could steal before the warlord next door decided to hack you into chum.
The fall of Rome plunged the world into savagery for the next half a millennium.
Liberals and leftists caused the end of Empires—under the hope the peoples would rise to become ‘Newly Emerging States’ Cultural beacons of tolerence. The elected leaders were cast down—peti tyrants and idiots took over and wrecked what was left of once prosperious states. It was an ideal of Hope that never really came about. FACT: the life span of Black Afticans has dropped. Poverty has increased under the rule of black leaders. I predict a new imperialism will come into being—and Africa will be cut up once again—Maybe for the betterment of the African people. This time the rulers might be Chinese, or Indian or even Islamic people—or Europeans (Germans this time) What ever happens the Liberal expeiment failed.
Yes, in many ways it was.
But don’t say that in front of a modern Liberal or you’ll be deafened by the squeals of horror.
This idea that the peasants had it OK under imperialism are ignoring the huge costs, due to colonial monopolies, for basics such as salt, cotton, and tea. Most of the land reform involved taking the land from the native ruling class and giving it to colonials, leaving the peasants without land for food. Don’t forget the huge taxes on the peasants. In Kenya, the British introduced coinage because they didn’t want to collect taxes in kind. This doubly cheated the peasants since the British set the price for agricultural goods. The peasants paid their taxes by raising cash crops instead of foodstuffs.
Anyway, if you complain about Kelo and eminent domain, maybe think twice about praising imperialism, which was doing the same thing on a larger scale (though of course, we have the Indians and all that ...).
Both of the above versions are entirely true, of course, depending on which data you select for analysis.
Most of the land reform involved taking the land from the native ruling class and giving it to colonials, leaving the peasants without land for food.
True in parts of the empire, but (mostly) not in India. With relatively minor exceptions in Assam and elsewhere, Brits never directly owned much land in India.
In Kenya it was never as simple as "taking land away from the natives."
A great deal of the land settlers acquired was empty when they arrived.
Now their settlement coincided with a population explosion among the natives (one indicator of improved conditions in both India and Kenya) and the natives were then shut out from the land they would otherwise have expanded onto.
Yes more often than not
I think we are still too close to the events to get truly impartial analyses of the pros and cons of European Colonialism. There are still many people who can remember it and there are certainly far too many who have invested political currency into either glorifying it or decrying it. However, I hope and pray that in years to come people will look back and come to the conclusion that, overall, there was more positive than negative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.