Inevitably, the discussions about Japan's invasion of East Asia has led some people to criticise Europe's own colonial past.
Not all European countries were colonial powers, although most Western European countries have tried to establish colonies in the Americas (notable failed attempts include some German princedoms and Sweden). It is also important to remember that the borders of present countries do not match the countries of the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th or even early 20th century. Germany and Italy did not exist as countries until the late 19th centuries, for example.
In my understanding, the most brutal European colonisation was that of Central and South America by Spain in the 16th and 17th centuries. This colonisation happened at a time of terror in Europe, especially in Spain and the Spanish Netherlands with the Spanish Inquisition. Spain had also just completed the reconquista over the Muslims. It is in this context that the conquistadores left for the Americas and conquer the Aztec and Inca empires. That just a few hundreds of them managed to conquer an empire of millions of people can be explained mainly by the spread of Eurasian diseases such as smallpox, syphillis or influenza that ravaged the local Amerindian populations. The Spaniards just had to walk to the Aztec and Inca capitals almost without a fight, as people were dying from smallpox everywhere around.
The colonisation of the Caribbean was more properly violent, as the Spaniards quickly decided to kill anybody who didn't want to convert to Christianity. This religious and brutal colonisation continued well into the 17th century in all Latin America, and is epistomised in the film The Mission. This was probably the most brutal form of European colonisation ever.
Another extremely brutal and more recent (although much less known) colonisation happened in Congo from 1876 to 1907, when Belgian king Leopold II acquired a huge portion of Central Africa as his personnal domain, which he called theCongo Free State. Millions of Africans died due to the harsh treatment inflicted by Leopold's contractors. When this became known in Belgium, the public scandal it caused forced Leopold to cede his private domain of Congo to the Belgian state, which formed the Belgian Congo. Leopold died the next year and was booed at his funeral (one of the few European monarch to get this dubbious priviledge). Quoting from Wikipedia, "The Belgian administration might be most charitably characterized as paternalistic colonialism". It was certainly a huge contrast with Leopold's rule.
The British, French and Dutch colonisations span over a long period of time and on all continents, so it is difficult to assess which was better or worse.
The early English and Dutch colonisations share in common that they were mostly commercial, through such independent organisations as the British East India Company and Dutch East India Company. The French also had theirs, but most of their colonisation of New France in America was directly sponsored by the king.
Just looking at the 17th and early 18th-century Americas, I'd say that the French did a better job, as independent explorer and fur-traders negotiated and dealt in a fairly peaceful ways with the Amerindians, while the British were very actively importing black slaves from Africa to the Caribbeans and North America.
From the late 18th to early 20th century though, the British had a more enlighened way of dealing with the local populations.
Overall my impression is that the British did the best job in treating the local population, which may explain why the British Commonwealth of Nations (heir of the British Empire) still exists, and Britain has kept relatively good relations with its former colonies (with only a few exceptions).
Who managed most efficiently their colonies ?
I also wonder why, looking at one region of the globe, British colonies have generally prospered more after the independence than French or Dutch ones.
In East Asia, ex-British colonies like Hong Kong, Singapore or Malaysia are thriving, while ex-French and Dutch colonies (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia) are not. The comparison between Malaysia and Indonesia is interesting, as both countries share the same official language, the same majority of Muslims, the same climate, even share the island of Borneo, but Malaysia is so much richer and more developed than Indonesia.
In Africa, ex-British colonies like Nigeria, Kenya, Tanzania, Namibia, Botswana and South Africa are also doing better than almost any other countries in Black Africa. Only the much smaller former Spanish colony of Guinea Equatorial (an African Singapore), and the ex-French colonies of Gabon and Senegal can be said to be doing as well.
I wonder whether this is due to a different style of colonisation or to other causes, such as the character of the local people, the environment or just chance. I'd rather go for the first choice.
American colonialism & migrations
Looking at American colonialism, there is usually not much brutality because it started late and was limited to Puerto Rico, Hawaii, the Phillippines and a few Pacific islands. They are still part of the US except for the Phillippines 9well it's debatable ).
I am not quite sure whether the acquisition of the US mainland over the Native Indians should be considered as colonialism. Like with other settlement colonies (Canada, Australia...), this is quite different from European colonialism in Africa or Asia, as the main purpose was to live there and make the country prosper, not just use it for commercial or political purposes. It's not more justificable, but it is more like a migration of population than properly colonialism. It's the same as the Turks invasion and settlement of the Byzantine Empire, the Germanic/Viking invasions of Europe, the Chinese ethnic expansion from North-East China in ancient times to the whole of modern China, including Tibet, Xinjiang or Manchuria. It is also the same as the Aryan invasion of India 5000 years ago, or the Yayoi invasion of Japan from Korea 2300 years ago.
It is therefore normal that migration countries like the USA, Canada, Australia or NZ should be more open to immigration from anywhere around the world than other countries. It is their way of admitting their past mistakes and share their conquest with the world. I seriously doubt that India or Japan would accept masses of immigrants under the pretext that they themselves invaded the country 5000 or 2300 years ago.
Japanese colonialism
As for Japanese colonialsim, it can be divided in 5 categories.
1) Korea was more an extension of Japan than a colony. I would compare it to how Ireland was ruled by England. The English tried to eradicate Irisg language (and culture) by prohibiting the use of Gaelic from the 18th century, and teaching only English at school. Ireland was directly governed from London. The situation was very similar in Korea. The Japanese imposed the teaching of Japanese, and the country was ruled from Tokyo as a part of Japan itself.
2) Taiwan is similar to Korea, except that the Japanese rule was less severe, and the island was more considered as a holiday or retirement colony. It's probably closer to Gibraltar, Malta or Cyprus's relations to Britain.
3) Manchuria was a protectorate (or "puppet-state"). Officially it was independent and ruled by the "last emperor of China" Pu Yi, but the Japanese kept troops there and had complete control. It was more similar to Egypt's relationship to Britain or Morocco's relationship to France in the late 19th and first half of 20th century.
4) China was not really a colony. China was occupied and ruled by the Japanese Imperial Army during the Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945). It is considered as a war and not a colonial period, as the Japanese government or civilians were not properly involved - and 8 years is too short to be called a colony. There was no commerce and the Army was more preoccupied to destroy the country than use it adroitly for their country's profit, as was the norm in the 20th-century colonisation of Western powers. I would rather compare China's occupation to Germany's occupation of Eastern Europe.
Some Chinese cities had previously been colonised by Japan, France, Germany, Britain, Russia and the US. This was the more typical Western commercial and political colonialism of the time. The purpose was to gain trading rights and priviledges and somewhat control politics in the colonised country, without replacing the government. The same system was established in India by the UK, but to the whole country, not just the main cities like in China.
5) Japan's brief occupation of South-East Asia was halfway between the typical Western colonialism of the time and its military invasion of China. Let's say that it was a military invasion and occupation, but that the Army did not rampage as much as in China, apart from a few particularily horrible massacres in Singapore or the Philippines.
Not all European countries were colonial powers, although most Western European countries have tried to establish colonies in the Americas (notable failed attempts include some German princedoms and Sweden). It is also important to remember that the borders of present countries do not match the countries of the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th or even early 20th century. Germany and Italy did not exist as countries until the late 19th centuries, for example.
In my understanding, the most brutal European colonisation was that of Central and South America by Spain in the 16th and 17th centuries. This colonisation happened at a time of terror in Europe, especially in Spain and the Spanish Netherlands with the Spanish Inquisition. Spain had also just completed the reconquista over the Muslims. It is in this context that the conquistadores left for the Americas and conquer the Aztec and Inca empires. That just a few hundreds of them managed to conquer an empire of millions of people can be explained mainly by the spread of Eurasian diseases such as smallpox, syphillis or influenza that ravaged the local Amerindian populations. The Spaniards just had to walk to the Aztec and Inca capitals almost without a fight, as people were dying from smallpox everywhere around.
The colonisation of the Caribbean was more properly violent, as the Spaniards quickly decided to kill anybody who didn't want to convert to Christianity. This religious and brutal colonisation continued well into the 17th century in all Latin America, and is epistomised in the film The Mission. This was probably the most brutal form of European colonisation ever.
Another extremely brutal and more recent (although much less known) colonisation happened in Congo from 1876 to 1907, when Belgian king Leopold II acquired a huge portion of Central Africa as his personnal domain, which he called theCongo Free State. Millions of Africans died due to the harsh treatment inflicted by Leopold's contractors. When this became known in Belgium, the public scandal it caused forced Leopold to cede his private domain of Congo to the Belgian state, which formed the Belgian Congo. Leopold died the next year and was booed at his funeral (one of the few European monarch to get this dubbious priviledge). Quoting from Wikipedia, "The Belgian administration might be most charitably characterized as paternalistic colonialism". It was certainly a huge contrast with Leopold's rule.
The British, French and Dutch colonisations span over a long period of time and on all continents, so it is difficult to assess which was better or worse.
The early English and Dutch colonisations share in common that they were mostly commercial, through such independent organisations as the British East India Company and Dutch East India Company. The French also had theirs, but most of their colonisation of New France in America was directly sponsored by the king.
Just looking at the 17th and early 18th-century Americas, I'd say that the French did a better job, as independent explorer and fur-traders negotiated and dealt in a fairly peaceful ways with the Amerindians, while the British were very actively importing black slaves from Africa to the Caribbeans and North America.
From the late 18th to early 20th century though, the British had a more enlighened way of dealing with the local populations.
Overall my impression is that the British did the best job in treating the local population, which may explain why the British Commonwealth of Nations (heir of the British Empire) still exists, and Britain has kept relatively good relations with its former colonies (with only a few exceptions).
Who managed most efficiently their colonies ?
I also wonder why, looking at one region of the globe, British colonies have generally prospered more after the independence than French or Dutch ones.
In East Asia, ex-British colonies like Hong Kong, Singapore or Malaysia are thriving, while ex-French and Dutch colonies (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia) are not. The comparison between Malaysia and Indonesia is interesting, as both countries share the same official language, the same majority of Muslims, the same climate, even share the island of Borneo, but Malaysia is so much richer and more developed than Indonesia.
In Africa, ex-British colonies like Nigeria, Kenya, Tanzania, Namibia, Botswana and South Africa are also doing better than almost any other countries in Black Africa. Only the much smaller former Spanish colony of Guinea Equatorial (an African Singapore), and the ex-French colonies of Gabon and Senegal can be said to be doing as well.
I wonder whether this is due to a different style of colonisation or to other causes, such as the character of the local people, the environment or just chance. I'd rather go for the first choice.
American colonialism & migrations
Looking at American colonialism, there is usually not much brutality because it started late and was limited to Puerto Rico, Hawaii, the Phillippines and a few Pacific islands. They are still part of the US except for the Phillippines 9well it's debatable ).
I am not quite sure whether the acquisition of the US mainland over the Native Indians should be considered as colonialism. Like with other settlement colonies (Canada, Australia...), this is quite different from European colonialism in Africa or Asia, as the main purpose was to live there and make the country prosper, not just use it for commercial or political purposes. It's not more justificable, but it is more like a migration of population than properly colonialism. It's the same as the Turks invasion and settlement of the Byzantine Empire, the Germanic/Viking invasions of Europe, the Chinese ethnic expansion from North-East China in ancient times to the whole of modern China, including Tibet, Xinjiang or Manchuria. It is also the same as the Aryan invasion of India 5000 years ago, or the Yayoi invasion of Japan from Korea 2300 years ago.
It is therefore normal that migration countries like the USA, Canada, Australia or NZ should be more open to immigration from anywhere around the world than other countries. It is their way of admitting their past mistakes and share their conquest with the world. I seriously doubt that India or Japan would accept masses of immigrants under the pretext that they themselves invaded the country 5000 or 2300 years ago.
Japanese colonialism
As for Japanese colonialsim, it can be divided in 5 categories.
1) Korea was more an extension of Japan than a colony. I would compare it to how Ireland was ruled by England. The English tried to eradicate Irisg language (and culture) by prohibiting the use of Gaelic from the 18th century, and teaching only English at school. Ireland was directly governed from London. The situation was very similar in Korea. The Japanese imposed the teaching of Japanese, and the country was ruled from Tokyo as a part of Japan itself.
2) Taiwan is similar to Korea, except that the Japanese rule was less severe, and the island was more considered as a holiday or retirement colony. It's probably closer to Gibraltar, Malta or Cyprus's relations to Britain.
3) Manchuria was a protectorate (or "puppet-state"). Officially it was independent and ruled by the "last emperor of China" Pu Yi, but the Japanese kept troops there and had complete control. It was more similar to Egypt's relationship to Britain or Morocco's relationship to France in the late 19th and first half of 20th century.
4) China was not really a colony. China was occupied and ruled by the Japanese Imperial Army during the Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945). It is considered as a war and not a colonial period, as the Japanese government or civilians were not properly involved - and 8 years is too short to be called a colony. There was no commerce and the Army was more preoccupied to destroy the country than use it adroitly for their country's profit, as was the norm in the 20th-century colonisation of Western powers. I would rather compare China's occupation to Germany's occupation of Eastern Europe.
Some Chinese cities had previously been colonised by Japan, France, Germany, Britain, Russia and the US. This was the more typical Western commercial and political colonialism of the time. The purpose was to gain trading rights and priviledges and somewhat control politics in the colonised country, without replacing the government. The same system was established in India by the UK, but to the whole country, not just the main cities like in China.
5) Japan's brief occupation of South-East Asia was halfway between the typical Western colonialism of the time and its military invasion of China. Let's say that it was a military invasion and occupation, but that the Army did not rampage as much as in China, apart from a few particularily horrible massacres in Singapore or the Philippines.
Last edited: