[comprar-espana]

We seem to have come full circle in our lust for other peoples resources.

While an article from Wicki indicates the primary reasons for colonialism were for self interests it does not focus on the disaster that it brought to the indigenous people living in the Colonies but mentions the improvement in the economic status for of course the Colonists.

Africa is a glaring example of of this theme and ties into my blog in respect to the continuing unrest, upheaval and revolts we see in the area.


Colonialism: Impact On African Societies from Encyclopedia of African History: Volume 1 A–G | BookRags.com

The Middle East material will follow with some leads to further examination of the subject.

Maybe this is the way the world must run but if so let's drop all the nuances related to decency and get about the plunder. i

[womberte]

What about the fact that America was a British colony, Canada a British and French colony, Austrailia was a British colony, ect and they've done one hellava job at it so far? Does this not speak to the culture rather than the environment? Does it always have to be someone else's fault for that person's failure?

[DongoSab]

What about the fact that America was a British colony, Canada a British and French colony, Austrailia was a British colony, ect and they've done one hellava job at it so far? Does this not speak to the culture rather than the environment? Does it always have to be someone else's fault for that person's failure?

I think his focus is primarily on the indigenous people.

In all of those cases, the natives got screwed.

[andrekuper]

I think his focus is primarily on the indigenous people.

In all of those cases, the natives got screwed.

Ah...yes, I see that now. Though I will say that it's not like the Native Americans were very cosmopolitan before we showed up. They lived very brutal lives that was nothing like Disney movies. I think India also has done fairly well for itself and so has Brazil.

Here's the thing that needs to be considered...what was there before colonialization and what would you expect to be different if it hadn't had happened? I don't think you can honestly say that Africa would be a shinning jewel of civilization w/o past colonialism.

[electmobile]

Ah...yes, I see that now. Though I will say that it's not like the Native Americans were very cosmopolitan before we showed up. They lived very brutal lives that was nothing like Disney movies. I think India also has done fairly well for itself and so has Brazil.

Here's the thing that needs to be considered...what was there before colonialization and what would you expect to be different if it hadn't had happened? I don't think you can honestly say that Africa would be a shinning jewel of civilization w/o past colonialism.

Fair points. Africa industrialized very late in the game, and they still lack it in many areas.

And yes, some Native American tribes were very brutal, like the Iroquois.

[UKkoXJvF]

Ah...yes, I see that now. Though I will say that it's not like the Native Americans were very cosmopolitan before we showed up. They lived very brutal lives that was nothing like Disney movies. I.

It was their lives. American way is not something every other nation approves of or wants to ape.

Everyone has a right to choose its own way of living.

[Fdmnrnba]

It was their lives. American way is not something every other nation approves of or wants to ape.

Everyone has a right to choose its own way of living.

I'm not arguing that. I was simply pointing out that it wasn't like colonization really hinder much in the way of progress in many of these instances.

[Paiblyelaxy]

I'm not arguing that. I was simply pointing out that it wasn't like colonization really hinder much in the way of progress in many of these instances.

I believe the feeling by many people today is that had the powers formed alliances with their colonies based on principles other than sucking up raw resources, that the results would have been even better, and the troubles much less.

[MaugleeRobins]

I'm not arguing that. I was simply pointing out that it wasn't like colonization really hinder much in the way of progress in many of these instances.

I understand what you are trying to say. But in cases of American Indians and Australian Aborigenies colonisation did hinder THEIR progress because colonists excluded them from the process of brought in development while not allowing their natural development.

While in India for example colonisation helped the progress of development of the indigenous people.

In my opinion, anyway.

[fedordzen]

I think his focus is primarily on the indigenous people.

In all of those cases, the natives got screwed.

Where in the world has that ever not happened? There isn't one significant civilization I can think of that hasn't kicked someone else's ass to expand their territory.

[anolbom]

What about the fact that America was a British colony, Canada a British and French colony, Austrailia was a British colony, ect and they've done one hellava job at it so far? Does this not speak to the culture rather than the environment? Does it always have to be someone else's fault for that person's failure?

The difference is that the US, Canada and Australia where special colonies. The colonists there largely replaced the traditional populations. In these regards they were more like new European realms rather than. As such they were designed from pretty early on less on merely exploiting the population and the country and more towards constructing more sustainable states in their own right.

Another important aspect was that as most of the people there were immigrants themselves, after independence they did not have such a heavy baggage of tribal history and local conflicts.

[JohnfAclambrJA]

I understand what you are trying to say. But in cases of American Indians and Australian Aborigenies colonisation did hinder THEIR progress because colonists excluded them from the process of brought in development while not allowing their natural development.

While in India for example colonisation helped the progress of development of the indigenous people.

In my opinion, anyway.

It's in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.

[SQiTmhuY]

Where in the world has that ever not happened? There isn't one significant civilization I can think of that hasn't kicked someone else's ass to expand their territory.

No argument here.

[Vomekayafboke]

What about the fact that America was a British colony, Canada a British and French colony, Austrailia was a British colony, ect and they've done one hellava job at it so far? Does this not speak to the culture rather than the environment? Does it always have to be someone else's fault for that person's failure?

The point is: (read my blog) as primary decendants of the three most notable and successful of those whom of their deeds many in (The U.S.A. say we distain today) have under a different name and technique proceeded once more to control vast numbers of the worlds population and resources to satisfy our projected needs and well being for mostly the same reasons our ancestors did. LUST for another's goods with much or more of the same brutality used in the days of global conquest under not this time the banner of Jesus Christ but that of Democracy. (Of course we can forego that requirement if it is to our advantage to do so.) It is the hypocrisy more than the act that is troublesome in that we educate our young to go through life wearing a mask to hide their true selves.

[gniewkoit]

Compared to Europe, USA were quite disorganized, backward country in year 1800. They needed more than a century to catch up with Old World. Same case with Brazil (independent since 1822), Australia (1901). Africa, Midddle East gain independence just half of century ago. Give them some more time, and for god's sake, don't corrupt their governments.

[loginereQQ]

The point is: (read my blog) as primary decendants of the three most notable and successful of those whom of their deeds many in (The U.S.A. say we distain today) have under a different name and technique proceeded once more to control vast numbers of the worlds population and resources to satisfy our projected needs and well being for mostly the same reasons our ancestors did. LUST for another's goods with much or more of the same brutality used in the days of global conquest under not this time the banner of Jesus Christ but that of Democracy. (Of course we can forego that requirement if it is to our advantage to do so.) It is the hypocrisy more than the act that is troublesome in that we educate our young to go through life wearing a mask to hide their true selves.

But the US doesn't really colonize so I'm not sure what the point is. Did you know the largest oil contract that Iraq has given out was to Russia? Also, there has been many instances where Iraq and Iran have had diplomatic relations. Basically, what it looks like, is that Iraq is really doing it's own thing despite our presence there and the fact that we help set up their government. Why is that? Well, they are not particularly beholden to us like you seem to think so. If the US is colonizing they are doing a piss poor job at it, so much so, that it would be hard to classify it as colonization.

[Immonnaornach]

But the US doesn't really colonize so I'm not sure what the point is. Did you know the largest oil contract that Iraq has given out was to Russia? Also, there has been many instances where Iraq and Iran have had diplomatic relations. Basically, what it looks like, is that Iraq is really doing it's own thing despite our presence there and the fact that we help set up their government. Why is that? Well, they are not particularly beholden to us like you seem to think so. If the US is colonizing they are doing a piss poor job at it, so much so, that it would be hard to classify it as colonization.

There are different types of colonization. US colonization is like a remote controll: you press a button and watch various shows untill you decide you don't like it and by pressing a button either turn the TV off or change the channel...

[dayclaccikere]

I understand what you are trying to say. But in cases of American Indians and Australian Aborigenies colonisation did hinder THEIR progress because colonists excluded them from the process of brought in development while not allowing their natural development.

While in India for example colonisation helped the progress of development of the indigenous people.

In my opinion, anyway.

Only because of the*blood sacrifice of the people of India and the inability of Great Britain to continue to control the country. If nothing else find and review the movie "Gandhi". It's close enough to reality.

[Metrujectiktus]

Liberia

[lalffibra]

But the US doesn't really colonize so I'm not sure what the point is. Did you know the largest oil contract that Iraq has given out was to Russia? Also, there has been many instances where Iraq and Iran have had diplomatic relations. Basically, what it looks like, is that Iraq is really doing it's own thing despite our presence there and the fact that we help set up their government. Why is that? Well, they are not particularly beholden to us like you seem to think so. If the US is colonizing they are doing a piss poor job at it, so much so, that it would be hard to classify it as colonization.

I earlier mentioned we are attempting to Colonize under a new banner and method. BUT this is something we suck at. Why in Gods name would the people of Iraq after we slaughtered so many of its people be expect to owe us anything ?

If the same were to happen to us would you feel beholding to the invaders ?

We are IMO sowing the seeds of our own destruction ! Just who of importance other than our partners in crime are "actually" friendly to us ?

Do you think the girls in a whore house actually love the sailors who spend their dollars with them on liberty ?