Page 6 of 7
Re: In defense of colonism
Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:40 pm
by Hobbes' Choice
Seleucus wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:12 pm
Sophisticated and also so deep.
Get back on your knees, and take it like a man.
Re: In defense of colonism
Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:45 pm
by ken
Seleucus wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:46 pm
ken wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2017 3:56 pmYour...
From your....
Since you...
...what you call... by your so called...
WHY you did not... You are so blinded by your own distorted... you do not...
...agree with your... justify your own...
What does it mean, "projection"?
'Projection' can mean
the presentation of an image on a surface, especially a screen. The image I projected of YOU was the image that I obtained from your own words on the screen in front of me.
"Projection" has also come to mean
portraying one's own self into or onto others, which I think this is what you were really trying to allude to here. (But we will not know for certain what you are getting at until you explain yourself). Anyway, if you were alluding to the latter, then that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote, not to the image that I projected onto the screen, because that was ALL about what you view, believe, and do. I certainly do NOT see, believe, nor do any of those things that YOU are doing here.
You are the one who views and believes that you, and your ways, are better than others are. I certainly do NOT and NEVER would share this view of yours.
Re: In defense of colonism
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 1:01 am
by Arising_uk
Seleucus wrote:...
Near Easterners and Mediterraneans.
Colonised the Victorians?
Re: In defense of colonism
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:31 am
by Seleucus
Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 1:01 amSeleucus wrote:...
Near Easterners and Mediterraneans.
Colonised the Victorians?
England was colonized by the Romans, right?
(And a number more bringing culture westward, a Neolithic migration of agriculturalists, a Pre-Roman Germanic migration, the famous Anglo-Saxon invasion, Roman Catholicism, and the Normans.)
Re: In defense of colonism
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:52 am
by vegetariantaxidermy
Seleucus wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:31 am
Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 1:01 amSeleucus wrote:...
Near Easterners and Mediterraneans.
Colonised the Victorians?
England was colonized by the Romans, right?
(And a number more bringing culture westward, a Neolithic migration of agriculturalists, a Pre-Roman Germanic migration, the famous Anglo-Saxon invasion, Roman Catholicism, and the Normans.)
Idiot.
Re: In defense of colonism
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:09 pm
by Arising_uk
Seleucus wrote:England was colonized by the Romans, right?
But their influence waned very badly,, in fact nearly forgotten, and in reality it was the English/Irish who went back and recolonised them, religiously speaking.
(And a number more bringing culture westward, a Neolithic migration of agriculturalists, a Pre-Roman Germanic migration, the famous Anglo-Saxon invasion, Roman Catholicism, and the Normans.)
None of this is a colonisation of the Victorians.
Re: In defense of colonism
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 1:14 pm
by tbieter
Seleucus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2017 2:28 pm
Bruce Gilley's "The case for colonialism" rocked the intellectual world this last couple weeks. Should be easy enough to find the article online, here is the abstract,
"For the last 100 years, Western colonialism has had a bad name. It is
high time to question this orthodoxy. Western colonialism was, as a
general rule, both objectively beneficial and subjectively legitimate in
most of the places where it was found, using realistic measures of those
concepts. The countries that embraced their colonial inheritance, by
and large, did better than those that spurned it. Anti-colonial ideology
imposed grave harms on subject peoples and continues to thwart
sustained development and a fruitful encounter with modernity in
many places. Colonialism can be recovered by weak and fragile states
today in three ways: by reclaiming colonial modes of governance;
by recolonising some areas; and by creating new Western colonies
from scratch."
In light of the resurgence of Western pride we are living through today, this is an essential read. Self-hating, White-guilt trippers, eat your bleeding hearts out =) It's a veritable cause for celebration that these obvious truths to anyone who has spent significant amounts of time in the Third-World can finally be spoken frankly.
A few years ago Paul Johnson, the British historian, published an article in which he called for a new colonialism. He argued that developed nations possessed administrative expertise that could benefit the underdeveloped nations. As I recall, he was vilified rather than having his arguments challenged. I'll try to find the article.
Re: In defense of colonism
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 1:23 pm
by Londoner
Seleucus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2017 3:59 am
A common criticism of colonism is that wealth was plundered. Gilley, and others too have noted that all that development had to be paid for somehow, overall the greatest share of cost was borne by the colonizing states who invested much more in their colonies than they profited from them, hence the easiness they were let go of by the colonizers when it came time to tighten belts after the war.
The point about India was that it was made to fit into an economic system that benefited British interests. Yes; certainly money was invested in infrastructure, but it was infrastructure suitable for a colony, not an equal - let alone a potential rival.
For example, Britain would invest in things that made the production and transport of cotton more effective - but not the production of finished cotton goods. The factories that made the goods, and then sold them to Indians, were in Britain. Any local Indian made textiles were taxed to make them uncompetetive. Thus India went from being a big pre-colonial exporter of cotton goods to an importer. And Britain, with a source of raw cotton and a massive captive market, became the world's leading cotton manufacturer.
And after colonialism? India still grew cotton, but invested the profits in India, for India. And it has now recaptured the share of world trade it had before colonisation.
As a system it was already failing before WW2. Too many new sources of supply, too many new countries industrialising, too many new markets. And nor was it ultimately good for Britain; to have an economy geared to protected trade with a captive market meant there was no need to invest in new machinery, no need to educate the workforce.
In the end, they crunched the numbers. The Imperial pageantry had been all very enjoyable, but not if it was going to cost money.
Re: In defense of colonism
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:14 pm
by Seleucus
Londoner wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 1:23 pm
Seleucus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2017 3:59 am
A common criticism of colonism is that wealth was plundered. Gilley, and others too have noted that all that development had to be paid for somehow, overall the greatest share of cost was borne by the colonizing states who invested much more in their colonies than they profited from them, hence the easiness they were let go of by the colonizers when it came time to tighten belts after the war.
The point about India was that it was made to fit into an economic system that benefited British interests.
....
In the end, they crunched the numbers. The Imperial pageantry had been all very enjoyable, but not if it was going to cost money.
So, was Britain robbing India, or was it over-spending on India? Looks like you're covering all bases.
Re: In defense of colonism
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:15 pm
by Seleucus
tbieter wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 1:14 pmIn light of the resurgence of Western pride we are living through today, this is an essential read. Self-hating, White-guilt trippers, eat your bleeding hearts out =) It's a veritable cause for celebration that these obvious truths to anyone who has spent significant amounts of time in the Third-World can finally be spoken frankly.
A few years ago Paul Johnson, the British historian, published an article in which he called for a new colonialism. He argued that developed nations possessed administrative expertise that could benefit the underdeveloped nations. As I recall, he was vilified rather than having his arguments challenged. I'll try to find the article.[/quote]
I would be delighted to read that it you were able to find it, I did a quick search, but unfortunately I'm not well antiquated with Paul Johnson.
Re: In defense of colonism
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:16 pm
by Seleucus
Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:09 pm
Seleucus wrote:England was colonized by the Romans, right?
But their influence waned very badly,, in fact nearly forgotten,
Oh, really?
Re: In defense of colonism
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:27 pm
by Arising_uk
Seleucus wrote:Oh, really?
Yes really. Rome was gone and it was a very long-time before the Irish went to Rome and brought back their version of faith.
Re: In defense of colonism
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:13 pm
by Seleucus
Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:27 pm
Seleucus wrote:Oh, really?
Yes really. Rome was gone and it was a very long-time before the Irish went to Rome and brought back their version of faith.
Hmm... I would have thought 1000 years of Roman Catholicism would have had some effect?
Re: In defense of colonism
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:35 pm
by Arising_uk
Seleucus wrote:Hmm... I would have thought 1000 years of Roman Catholicism would have had some effect?
Five odd centuries of Protestantism had more I think and the Industrial Revolution had the most.
Re: In defense of colonism
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:00 pm
by Seleucus
Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:35 pm
Seleucus wrote:Hmm... I would have thought 1000 years of Roman Catholicism would have had some effect?
Five odd centuries of Protestantism had more I think and the Industrial Revolution had the most.
As you like. The question in the middle of the last page was how did the English progress from barbarism to the apex of civilization? It was through successive waves of colonization originating in the Near East and Mediterranean.