Apologizing for your forbears actions is strange to me. Colonialism had many bad results and effects, but it also brought about many incredibly positive changes and advancements. It’s not a black and white issue.
When I first read this comment, I thought "for sure, not black and white. This fella says there’s ‘incredibly positive changes and advancements’ "
Then I tried to think of one positive change or advancement that colonialism brought about. I’m sorry, my lemon, I’m calling BS. Honestly, the best thing I could come up with was “a bunch of bananas for 79¢” and frankly, that industry is horrifying.
You can do better than that. Sell the book to me, what are some perspectives?
I’ve visited indian residential schools in Canada, stood before the limestone blocks upon which slaves were displayed for trade in Virginia, and have seen the ecologic destruction caused by open-pit copper mining rural N America. These impact my view of colonialism. You’ve gotta give me something more than, “there’s one book you haven’t read that will change everything”
Slave trade, for one instance, wasn’t happening solely because of colonialism. It was happening in Africa long before it became apart of the colonial operation. It has a long history and it’s not one tied exclusively to colonialism.
As for the residential schools, that’s some fucked up shit, no doubt. I don’t know the history of Canada and how all that came about. But the interaction and history of European settlers with North American natives (which once were from the Middle East or Africa and walked over through Serbia and crossed the land bridge to Alaska) is long and complicated. It was not purely one of one person oppressing another at all times.
The oppressor/oppressed narrative that is so popular in left wing ideologies today is a product of Foucault and its subsequent propagation amongst the post modernists. It’s popular in many circles in academia, but it’s not the only narrative, nor is it a perfectly true narrative.
Anyway, I enjoyed Sapiens a lot. I thought it gave more nuance into the complexities of colonialism.
many incredibly positive changes and advancements for the netherlands from exploiting colonies that saw extremely little of that wealth making its way back
any wealth that did make its way back was nearly exclusively to aid in the exploitation, not out of some genuine kindness
not to mention that doing a good thing does not bar you from blame for reprehensible actions, such as the netherlands shockingly brutal retaliation to any disobedience by the indigenous people of its colonies
I.E. the netherlands got rich off the backs of its colonies, which were neglected and abused for it
not to mention their expansive role in the transatlantic slave trade
an apology from the main representative of the nation is more than warranted, and its honestly fucking embarrassing that this absolutely tiny, practically meaningless statement took this long
But what does this apology actually do? It doesn’t accomplish anything at this point. The people apologizing aren’t the perpetrators. “I’m sorry my great grandpa did horrific shit.” What? You weren’t even around when your great grandpa was. You are apologizing for something for which you have absolute no control or agency. It doesn’t make any sense.
it acknowledges the crimes and that they were in fact bad things to do that we are not proud of, and it makes people feel better at 0 tangible cost to the netherlands
no one is suggesting that anyone alive today is at fault
i also dont know why you did some schpiel about how colonialism totally wasnt that bad if your real issue issue is apparently the lack of agency
Im creating an argument that goes against the apology. I don’t find that it’s a productive use of time. Nor do I believe that colonialism is all bad. There were many positive aspects of colonialism that lead to a more globalized and multicultural world. It has also led to advancements that would not have occurred at this time without the commixture of different peoples and cultures.
The simple narrative is that the super powerful Europeans came over and oppressed everyone native. But that’s not the reality.
Expedite technology transfer, for example. For the GB being able to exploit and plunder the Indian subcontinent, they have to provide good transport system to transfer all the plundered goods back to their country. Just look at Indian’s rail system now. It is hard to imagine them having it without this unintentional transfer of tech.
Having said that, I don’t condone using this argument to make things right. Ethically their still wrong. At least The Netherlands has the guts to admit it. My country is one of the countries exploited by the British. It is nice, as a good gesture, to hear the British to admit they used to be the bad guy. It’s not going to change anything in the past, but it can somehow provide a sense of closure for the future.
@Chipthemonk To assist your imagination, consider Japan. It wasn’t colonised (in fact it eventually became a coloniser) but found its own path to development.
If they became a colonizer, then they were not “in need” of technological advancement. And when I say technological advancement, I’m referring to things like communication, healthcare, a court of law, and so much more.
The places that got colonized got colonized because they were not as well developed, both in terms of capacity, infrastructure, and technology, to name a few things.
Colonialism allowed places not like Japan to become as advanced as Japan.
@Chipthemonk@boyi Point is, before being colonised, India was at a similar level of tech to Japan; some would say India’s textiles were ahead. So if left to themselves, what makes you think they wouldn’t have built railways etc. as Japan did? Likewise, Ethiopia already had roads, courts etc. when briefly occupied by Italy. The Italians’ advantage was an air force & poison gas.
@Chipthemonk What you say about being advanced is true if defined militarily. So they “needed to be colonised” because they were unable to repel colonisers (as Japan did, and as Ethiopia did until the 1930s)?
Many natives welcomed the colonizers because they could trade with the them and advance their own cultures. It wasn’t purely about oppressors and oppressed. That binary view is simply removed from reality.
If by “brought about positive changes”, you mean that it’s allowed colonial powers to enrich themselves enormously while draining their colonies of wealth, leaving millions to starve and destabilizing regions for generations, then yes perhaps you’re right.
The argument you used could be applied in exactly the same way to justify slavery. The positive changes here always favour the oppressor, never the oppressed.
Apologizing for your forbears actions is strange to me. Colonialism had many bad results and effects, but it also brought about many incredibly positive changes and advancements. It’s not a black and white issue.
When I first read this comment, I thought "for sure, not black and white. This fella says there’s ‘incredibly positive changes and advancements’ "
Then I tried to think of one positive change or advancement that colonialism brought about. I’m sorry, my lemon, I’m calling BS. Honestly, the best thing I could come up with was “a bunch of bananas for 79¢” and frankly, that industry is horrifying.
Yuval Harari’s “Sapiens” has some good perspectives on this issue. I recommend you read it. Then check out some of the cited sources.
You can do better than that. Sell the book to me, what are some perspectives?
I’ve visited indian residential schools in Canada, stood before the limestone blocks upon which slaves were displayed for trade in Virginia, and have seen the ecologic destruction caused by open-pit copper mining rural N America. These impact my view of colonialism. You’ve gotta give me something more than, “there’s one book you haven’t read that will change everything”
Slave trade, for one instance, wasn’t happening solely because of colonialism. It was happening in Africa long before it became apart of the colonial operation. It has a long history and it’s not one tied exclusively to colonialism.
As for the residential schools, that’s some fucked up shit, no doubt. I don’t know the history of Canada and how all that came about. But the interaction and history of European settlers with North American natives (which once were from the Middle East or Africa and walked over through Serbia and crossed the land bridge to Alaska) is long and complicated. It was not purely one of one person oppressing another at all times.
The oppressor/oppressed narrative that is so popular in left wing ideologies today is a product of Foucault and its subsequent propagation amongst the post modernists. It’s popular in many circles in academia, but it’s not the only narrative, nor is it a perfectly true narrative.
Anyway, I enjoyed Sapiens a lot. I thought it gave more nuance into the complexities of colonialism.
many incredibly positive changes and advancements for the netherlands from exploiting colonies that saw extremely little of that wealth making its way back
any wealth that did make its way back was nearly exclusively to aid in the exploitation, not out of some genuine kindness
not to mention that doing a good thing does not bar you from blame for reprehensible actions, such as the netherlands shockingly brutal retaliation to any disobedience by the indigenous people of its colonies
I.E. the netherlands got rich off the backs of its colonies, which were neglected and abused for it
not to mention their expansive role in the transatlantic slave trade
an apology from the main representative of the nation is more than warranted, and its honestly fucking embarrassing that this absolutely tiny, practically meaningless statement took this long
But what does this apology actually do? It doesn’t accomplish anything at this point. The people apologizing aren’t the perpetrators. “I’m sorry my great grandpa did horrific shit.” What? You weren’t even around when your great grandpa was. You are apologizing for something for which you have absolute no control or agency. It doesn’t make any sense.
it acknowledges the crimes and that they were in fact bad things to do that we are not proud of, and it makes people feel better at 0 tangible cost to the netherlands
no one is suggesting that anyone alive today is at fault
i also dont know why you did some schpiel about how colonialism totally wasnt that bad if your real issue issue is apparently the lack of agency
Im creating an argument that goes against the apology. I don’t find that it’s a productive use of time. Nor do I believe that colonialism is all bad. There were many positive aspects of colonialism that lead to a more globalized and multicultural world. It has also led to advancements that would not have occurred at this time without the commixture of different peoples and cultures.
The simple narrative is that the super powerful Europeans came over and oppressed everyone native. But that’s not the reality.
@Chipthemonk @BrikoX Is there something that makes you think positive changes & advancements wouldn’t have happened without colonialism?
Expedite technology transfer, for example. For the GB being able to exploit and plunder the Indian subcontinent, they have to provide good transport system to transfer all the plundered goods back to their country. Just look at Indian’s rail system now. It is hard to imagine them having it without this unintentional transfer of tech.
Having said that, I don’t condone using this argument to make things right. Ethically their still wrong. At least The Netherlands has the guts to admit it. My country is one of the countries exploited by the British. It is nice, as a good gesture, to hear the British to admit they used to be the bad guy. It’s not going to change anything in the past, but it can somehow provide a sense of closure for the future.
It’s hard to imagine that we would be where we are today, as a technologically advanced and free society in the west, without colonialism.
@Chipthemonk To assist your imagination, consider Japan. It wasn’t colonised (in fact it eventually became a coloniser) but found its own path to development.
If they became a colonizer, then they were not “in need” of technological advancement. And when I say technological advancement, I’m referring to things like communication, healthcare, a court of law, and so much more.
The places that got colonized got colonized because they were not as well developed, both in terms of capacity, infrastructure, and technology, to name a few things.
Colonialism allowed places not like Japan to become as advanced as Japan.
@Chipthemonk @boyi Point is, before being colonised, India was at a similar level of tech to Japan; some would say India’s textiles were ahead. So if left to themselves, what makes you think they wouldn’t have built railways etc. as Japan did? Likewise, Ethiopia already had roads, courts etc. when briefly occupied by Italy. The Italians’ advantage was an air force & poison gas.
If they were as advanced, then they wouldn’t have been colonized. The railways were introduced by the British colonizers.
Sure, many places would have eventually caught up, maybe, but it would have taken a long, long time.
The anti colonialism narrative that is big these days could use a lot more nuance.
@Chipthemonk What you say about being advanced is true if defined militarily. So they “needed to be colonised” because they were unable to repel colonisers (as Japan did, and as Ethiopia did until the 1930s)?
Many natives welcomed the colonizers because they could trade with the them and advance their own cultures. It wasn’t purely about oppressors and oppressed. That binary view is simply removed from reality.
If by “brought about positive changes”, you mean that it’s allowed colonial powers to enrich themselves enormously while draining their colonies of wealth, leaving millions to starve and destabilizing regions for generations, then yes perhaps you’re right. The argument you used could be applied in exactly the same way to justify slavery. The positive changes here always favour the oppressor, never the oppressed.