Colonialism - is the alternative worse?

[Solomon1]

Divisions were probably there before we rocked up

 

Like in Palestine you mean?

[Cyclone]

Poverty levels, whilst still awful aren't as bad as they were. We ended up starving millions of them in 1940s. Things are better, and getting better on whole according to my Indian mate who lives there.

 

Poverty levels across the entire world are better than they were.

I don't think we can claim to have achieved that in India or Pakistan or anywhere else by having colonised them and then left a hundred years later.

[Berberis]

I can't think of an ex British colonial country that is actually better off today, it certainly makes you wonder doesn't it?

 

How about Australia or New Zealand?

[Solomon1]

How about Australia or New Zealand?

 

Or America

[tinfoilhat]

Like in Palestine you mean?

 

Yeah cos there is no history of Jewish people in that area at all. The wailing wall was only built in 1946.

[Solomon1]

Yeah cos there is no history of Jewish people in that area at all. The wailing wall was only built in 1946

 

So on the basis of 'we were here first'

 

Perhaps Britain could step in to boot all non indigenous Australians out

 

And hand it back to the aborigines?

 

And also in America, hand it back to the First Nations?

[sgtkate]

Good question and in the short term I'd probably say that those countries would be better off under colonialism, however, they are were they are due to their colonial masters pulling out which we'd have to do at some point. Sadly I think the best thing to do is to try to not get involved and let them find their own path. The problem here is that many of these countries have resources we need (oil, minerals to make phones, diamonds etc) and as such they are being interfered with and I cannot see anyway to stop it.

 

I don't think there is a right answer. Unless we can force companies from making profits out of these countries and for us to stop trading with them then there will always be outside interference affecting their development. But if we do fully cut them off then are we really prepared to live with the death and suffering that will ensue. Enforce more ethical trading, only give aid directly to those who need it rather than financial handouts, quicker UN intervention when abuses are happening, voting to be overseen and validated by the UN, all heads of states to sign up to certain international laws (worldwide not just Africa) which allows them to be prosecuted for failing to meet minimum standard of human rights and so on. None of these fully fix the problems though.

[tinfoilhat]

So on the basis of 'we were here first'

 

Perhaps Britain could step in to boot all non indigenous Australians out

 

And hand it back to the aborigines?

 

And also in America, hand it back to the First Nations?

 

If you think that's a good idea suggest it.

 

Or could just snipe from the sidelines, that's cool too.

 

---------- Post added 11-03-2016 at 19:02 ----------

 

Good question and in the short term I'd probably say that those countries would be better off under colonialism, however, they are were they are due to their colonial masters pulling out which we'd have to do at some point. Sadly I think the best thing to do is to try to not get involved and let them find their own path. The problem here is that many of these countries have resources we need (oil, minerals to make phones, diamonds etc) and as such they are being interfered with and I cannot see anyway to stop it.

 

I don't think there is a right answer. Unless we can force companies from making profits out of these countries and for us to stop trading with them then there will always be outside interference affecting their development. But if we do fully cut them off then are we really prepared to live with the death and suffering that will ensue. Enforce more ethical trading, only give aid directly to those who need it rather than financial handouts, quicker UN intervention when abuses are happening, voting to be overseen and validated by the UN, all heads of states to sign up to certain international laws (worldwide not just Africa) which allows them to be prosecuted for failing to meet minimum standard of human rights and so on. None of these fully fix the problems though.

 

I like the idea of ethical trading but really that has to either driven by governments or consumers, businesses won't do it unless there's something in for them. Nestle hardly have a decent record in Africa. And most consumers don't care about stuff as long as it's cheap.

[NigelFargate]

Good question and in the short term I'd probably say that those countries would be better off under colonialism, however, they are were they are due to their colonial masters pulling out which we'd have to do at some point. Sadly I think the best thing to do is to try to not get involved and let them find their own path. The problem here is that many of these countries have resources we need (oil, minerals to make phones, diamonds etc) and as such they are being interfered with and I cannot see anyway to stop it.

 

I don't think there is a right answer. Unless we can force companies from making profits out of these countries and for us to stop trading with them then there will always be outside interference affecting their development. But if we do fully cut them off then are we really prepared to live with the death and suffering that will ensue. Enforce more ethical trading, only give aid directly to those who need it rather than financial handouts, quicker UN intervention when abuses are happening, voting to be overseen and validated by the UN, all heads of states to sign up to certain international laws (worldwide not just Africa) which allows them to be prosecuted for failing to meet minimum standard of human rights and so on. None of these fully fix the problems though.

 

A very good answer to the question.

 

A salutary lesson the the post-colonial era is that self-government does not necessarily lead to good government. Indeed, the history of post-independence Africa would suggest the opposite.

[Flanker7]

What is the alternative?

 

One of the most obvious countries is Thailand, its never been occupied by a European state. I can't see any big difference between them and states which have been Colonised.

 

In any event how do we know what would have happened . . if . .