Which form of colonialism was the worst ?

It is impossible to compile a league table of historical atrocities. However, this emphasis upon the British surprises and amuses me when one considers the record of both Germany and Japan in WW2. Nothing ever done in the name of Britain comes even near the scale of colonial atrocities committed by the Japanese Army and Navy in the late 1930s to 1945.

If one of the previous posters thinks the Ottoman Turks were 'perverse', let him read accounts of the torture methods of the Japanese Kempetei in WW2, or the infamous two week-long 'Rape of Nanking' by Japanese soldiery in China.

Read Lord Russell of Liverpool's 'The Knights of Bushido', an account of Japanese War Crimes in WW2, and you may begin to comprehend the staggeringly vast and depraved nature of Japanese colonialist barbarism. Believe me, the British and the Turks were only playing at it in comparison..
 
Cimmerianbloke said:
A blatant contradiction with their politics in Ireland...
Click to expand...

Yes and no. The British didn't have one overall policy by which they governed their various colonies, they were never that organised. lol. Each place was governed according to it's own political and cultural climate, so we have places like Ireland (and Scotland early on) who had it fairly bad under British rule whereas other places (like India) had it comparatively easy.

But I agree with Yorkie, there is too much fixation on the British here. As colonists and empire builders go they were not the worst, possibly just the largest to date.
 
Antigone said:
Yes and no. The British didn't have one overall policy by which they governed their various colonies, they were never that organised. lol. Each place was governed according to it's own political and cultural climate, so we have places like Ireland (and Scotland early on) who had it fairly bad under British rule whereas other places (like India) had it comparatively easy.

But I agree with Yorkie, there is too much fixation on the British here. As colonists and empire builders go they were not the worst, possibly just the largest to date.
Click to expand...

Thankyou for that acknowledgement, my Greek friend. :good_job:
 
Mzungu mchagga said:
Also Englishmen sometimes suffer as prisoners of her majesty. ;-)
Click to expand...

The expression is 'Subjects of the Queen'. We have two Queens actually. One is Elizabeth the Second [Saxe-Coburg-Gotha], and the other is Elton John.
 
Spanish colonisation was the most cruel? This is bullshit and black legend propaganda. I thought that thanks to improvement of literacy levels and the widespread difussion of information on the Internet nobody believed it anymore, but apparently there seem to be die hard black legend followers. To prove my point about Spain not being the most barbaric colonial power, look at how many brown people there are in South America and then compare it to USA or Canada. The most cruel colonisation was that of Britain and her American offspring. They physicially wiped out entire nations. Not only in America but in Australia too. I'm not saying Spanish colonisation was modelic, but indeed it was more lenient than the British, French , Dutch and Portuguese ones (for example the Portuguese controlled the black slaves trade. They collected them in Africa from the Arabs or rival tribes and shipped to America). Also there is big contradiction here, if most of the casualties among the natives was due to smallpox brought by the Spanish, then how come are they responsible of those deaths?
 
If you want to see who was the most cruel colonisation you only have to watch at the spanish traditions... I don't see english or portuguese killing bulls in a horrid public spectacle.
 
Opening up to immigration does not equal admiting to wrong doing. Many other brutal empires have brought people back from conquered countries. The Mongols would bring back many scientists, slaves, and fighters from conquered lands. When you look at today's immigration patterns, immigrants to the west are used largely to work minimum wage jobs to serve the white bourgeoisie. The refugees are actually people who fought for the west. Therefore, refugees aren't actually given that status out of the kindness of westerners hearts. If you fought on the side of the west in the Vietnam war, you were given a green card to the west. This doesn't mean that they're just giving away citizenship to anyone who applies. They allow these refugees in because they have done something for the west. A lot of immigration is also skilled. So while many westerners don't actually study hard in school, they bring in immigrants who do, and those are the ones who fill the job of engineers, doctors, etc. If you have a look around the Silicon valley, you see a lot of foreigners. We could argue that if it wasn't for foreign immigrants, the Silicon valley wouldn't even exist. Even if you look at the phd programs in the west, alot of the students are also foreign. As far as Russia being the worst colonial master, I call cap. I have talked to many Ukranians, Moldovans who are pro Russian, and have fond memories of the USSR. One of them even worked for an America company. Not to mention that 70% of the Soviets actually opted to stay in
 
Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaysia's "thriving" economies has nothing to do with British management. If that were the case, then India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh would also be thriving but why aren't they? Plenty of African countries also not doing very well, despite being victims of British colonialism. Hong Kong thrives because of China. For a long time, freight from the mainland would go through Hong Kong, allowing Hong Kong to collect a lot of agent fees, whereas today, it goes through various Chinese cities. Hong Kong is where also alot of Chinese bourgeoisie went after the liberation of the mainland, therefore, the bourgeoisie would've brought a lot of money into it after 1949. The same for Taiwan. Essentially, they tried to take all of China's wealth with them. Hong Kong is the center of a lot of anti Chinese activity. Since China doesn't want trouble in Hong Kong, it pumps money into it, almost like a protection fee, as it believes a thriving economy could shield it from unrest. The west pumps money into HK because they can use them as a pawn against China as you saw with the recent protests, riots, etc. Hong Kong also serves as a very important intelligence collection point. So they're getting paid both ways. Singapore is also used as a pawn against China as you can see with their military partnerships with the west. Singapore also serves as an important location for shipping, but that was given to them due to their pro western, and far right political leanings. Militarily, Singapore can be used as a base to strike China from, or at the very least stop Chinese shipping traffic, so that's really why they've been made to be more important than they actually are. Furthermore, countries like Singapore are given concesions by the America, and has very little to do with who ruled them before hand. Malaysia actually has value to it. They are located in a very important place. The Malaca strait is an important location for ships to pass through and they've been able to thrive because of that. Malaysia can also be used as a choke point for Chinese shipping. Therefore, I'd argue it wouldn't matter if they were conquered by the British, Aztecs, or Mongols, they still would be thriving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top