[OT] Ex-colonies was: Liberals

[quoted original message omitted]

[quoted original message omitted]

> --- "K.H.Ranitzsch" <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:

> > And the results are in!

Yup. Just like the entire continent of Africa.

Like the Middle East.

Like India, yes. Ever heard of Pakistan, Bangladesh, and the Kashmir?

What's the difference? The difference is that in the USA, Australia, and
Canada the natives were largely eradicated and replaced by British. It's
colonization on the Greek model, not colonialism.

> --- "K.H.Ranitzsch" <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:

Well, if you bother to check the demographics of crime, it would support the
tribal concept! (But then Germany and most of eastern europe would fit into
the catagory.)

Bye for now,

> > In places such as...
Divide and conquer then rule works well in a colonial system until the third
party doing the dividing pulls out.

It is very unfortunite that your comment makes it
sound like the Pacistani/arab/muslim lived in peace with the
Indian/hindus down the block and that ONLY the advent
of the colonial era caused friction.   The truth is
that the colonials caused the massive tribal wars to be reduced to a minimum
and proved a system of laws that these promptly abandoned so that they could
go back to the tribal traditions of murder and slavery.

I think the term "massive" in tribal wars is a bit of a misnomer. Yes the
tribal strife is back but, given the colonial practice of using a minorities
as the police force and as troops certainly didn't help. Further the advent of
western weapons and military practices really has brought the old tribal wars
a new and far deadlier dimension. As for tribal traditions of murder and
slavery we don't have to look at the former European colonies, there are a few
spots in Europe that come to mind as meeting those same conditions.

The point being this, when you strip away all the high sounding words war is
at it base theft. You are ether trying to steal by force of arms or prevent
that theft by those same arms. Humans bolt on the suitable ideology later to
help them sleep at night.

> At 11:28 PM -0500 9/15/02, Don M wrote:

Don, the Hindus and Muslims weren't attacking each other with Churchill tanks.
They were using swords, sticks and what rare firearms were at hand. The riots
were large enough to be massively deadly based on sheer numbers.

> The point being this, when you strip away all the high

Different age. I had a conversation on this subject with a chap from Malasia
about this very subject a few weeks back.

The colonial-ism mode of the 16th and 17th centuries changed to that
of the 20th century where at least in the case of the British, the government
actively did what it could to do better for the people in its power. The chap
I specifically spoke with stated that he felt Malaysia was better for having
been a colony of the British. Far better than say of the French, Dutch or
Belgians. The British left a lasting legacy of technology, education and
infrastructure that allowed the country to jump off from that point and
continue.

Many post colonial era problems in parts of the world are in spite of
Britain's efforts to leave the country in good standing and in working order.
India had its problems due to the long standing strife between different
peoples. HM's government probably made the peaceful existence of so many
people possible due to the fact that they weren't under the rule of local
royalty. I have to wonder what M Ghadi would think if he saw how Pakistan and
India were aiming Nukes at each other. He might think rule by the British
wasn't so bad after all.

Zimbabwe has slowly slid into a clusterfuck despite British good
intentions. One could say the same of Palestine/Israel to a more
limited extent (in some ways I think the Israeli's are getting back 100 fold
the bread they cast at the British). Of course neither resemble the complete
and utter messes that became of the Belgian Congo and other parts of Africa
when those colonial powers pulled up root and left.

Ryan,

Don, the Hindus and Muslims weren't attacking each other with Churchill tanks.
They were using swords, sticks and what rare firearms were at hand. The riots
were large enough to be massively deadly based on sheer numbers.

True, but I think the point that you and many others miss is that these tribal
wars always happen and sadly must happen. Look at European history, most of
the tribal and religious problems were worked out before the Nukes were an
issue. Sadly much of the third world was prevented from working them out and
maturing in the process.Bloody as that process would have been.

Different age. I had a conversation on this subject with a chap from Malasia
about this very subject a few weeks back.

The colonial-ism mode of the 16th and 17th centuries changed to that
of the 20th century where at least in the case of the British, the government
actively did what it could to do better for the people in its power. The chap
I specifically spoke with stated that he felt Malaysia was better for having
been a colony of the British. Far better than say of the French, Dutch or
Belgians.

I don't dispute that fact at all as I recall the line from a movie where a
person stated, " If on must have a ruler the British are by far the best." He
went on to say, "But why have a ruler at all?".

The British left a lasting legacy of technology, education and infrastructure
that allowed the country to jump off from that point and continue.

True, in the end they did.....By trying to make the world England.

Many post colonial era problems in parts of the world are in spite of
Britain's efforts to leave the country in good standing and in working order.
India had its problems due to the long standing strife between different
peoples. HM's government probably made the peaceful existence of so many
people possible due to the fact that they weren't under the rule of local
royalty.

It merely forestalled the inevitable, people need to work out their own
problems. A third party never fixes anything permanently.

I have to wonder what M Ghadi would think if he saw how Pakistan and India
were aiming Nukes at each other. He might think rule by the British wasn't so
bad after all.

It would indeed....

Zimbabwe has slowly slid into a clusterfuck despite British good intentions.

Well it hasn't worked since they had the name change.

One could say the same of Palestine/Israel to a more
limited extent (in some ways I think the Israeli's are getting back 100 fold
the bread they cast at the British).

Yes sort of starting things with the Belfore document.

Of course neither resemble the complete and utter messes that became of the
Belgian Congo and other parts of Africa when those colonial powers pulled up
root and left.

Without a doubt.

[quoted original message omitted]

> On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, Ryan Gill wrote:

> The colonial-ism mode of the 16th and 17th centuries changed to that

To my surprise, I heard similar statements from indonesians - that they
were not bitter about the past; that the colonial time udner dutch rule
brought them a lot of good things. But that they were also glad that they were
now independent.

How that compares to other colonial powers is a different matter; I wouldn't
have a clue in that respect.

Cheers,