[SPORK] Was Colonialism good or bad for the world? (was: Q: Was British rule bad or good for India? and before that: The rhetoric of liberation...)

johnhall johnhall@isomedia.com
Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:21:07 -0800


Yet the question was fairly limited to India, I didn't see a question
about colonialism in general.

There was a quote, I think I read it in a book called "Out of America",
which said that the Europeans had played a cruel trick on Africa.

Namely, Africa would have been better off if they had never come _OR_ if
they had stayed much longer.

(Emphasis mine).


So I can easily see both points.  Colonialism was great for North
America and India but rarely anywhere else.

For India it was great for everyone.  For North America, which was a
settlement operation, it wasn't so great for the earlier inhabitants.

In particular, being in a colony run by Belgium really sucked IIRC.


> From: fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com] On Behalf Of JS
> Kelly
> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 12:02 PM
> To: fork@xent.com
> Subject: [SPORK] Was Colonialism good or bad for the world? (was: Q:
Was
> British rule bad or good for India? and before that: The rhetoric of
> liberation...)
> 
> 
> 
> to isolate just india and just britain is to look at such a small
slice of
> the picture. so many of today's '3d world' countries are former
colonies
> of england, france, italy, spain, portugal, belgium, holland (and in
the
> end, germany). given that it is impossible to know 'what would have
> been,' the history and outcomes of that system taken as a whole seem
to be
> pretty solidly on the negative side.
> -jsk
>