As i said, damn few Arican colonies were ever planned to be places that people (from the mother country) wanted to immigrate to. How many frenchmen planned to move to Fench west Africa? Or England; a few englishmen went to Kenya and Tanganyika-but they were only a few thousand in total. How many belgians planned to make their home in the Congo?
Nope, these places were for resource extraction (mining, oil wells), and plantations-not to be settled by vast numbers of people from the home country. When the europeans left, all of the trained administrators left 9or were expelled0, so the newly-independent nations had a double strike against them.
Oh, he was tough enough to hack it, all right, he just didn’t like it (see “Shooting an Elephant”). He joined the Indian Imperial Police in 1922 and resigned in 1927 while in England on leave. He did not fail at his job from emotional weakness. Orwell was tough, for a middle-class Brit; while all the other lefties in England just talked up the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War, Orwell actually went there to fight Franco as a volunteer.
And he is (or was) an authority on British imperialism in Asia compared to any one who was never there, then.
And he knew well what Kipling did not but what I’m sure you would never dispute: Imperialism existed in the first place to exploit the natives and/or their lands for money, not to confer upon them benefits of civilization, peace, order, good government, or “the Law.”
Absurdity? So what was Canada, or Australia, or Mexico, or the United States? Were they colonies?
The purpose was to bring up the point that colonialism wasn’t something dreamed up by Queen Victoria one day. Foreigners moving into a region and setting themselves up as the new ruling class isn’t exactly a novel phenomenon in world history. Whether those people imagined they were conquering the new territory so they could set themselves up back home, or whether they intended to set themselves up in the new territory.
Let’s rather not “get on” until you address the point in my last post, shall we?
What the fuck does that have to do with anything? How we deal with immigration has what the everliving fuck to do with not wanting colonial rule back?
Surprise - this is a worldwide phenomenon - Sep. 11, London, Bali? Nothing if not Middle-Eastern troubles spilling over porous borders.
Just who the fuck are “my lot”? What is all this “Say no more, go’nor!” nod-wink evasive bullshit? Say what you fucking mean, dipshit! I’ve got no fucking losses to cut, I have a nice enough life here and I’m doing some good for my fucking country. I see no reason to do the Chicken Run, and if I do emigrate, it’ll be because I want a change of scenery, not because of fear. Didn’t leave when I was getting beaten in the streets, not going to leave just because some megalomaniac arsehole next door happens to be making life miserable enough for his people that they’d rather be here.
Some of my best friends are Zimbos, and while what’s happened in their country is really shit, I’d be a real tosser to turn them away, and almost as bad if I was in London rather than here to welcome them and give them a hand.
It’s one planet, like it or not, and all the running away in the world won’t change that. But I think it’s a coward whose first thought is to run, without first thinking of how to make things better. I like to think I’m a little better of a world citizen than that.
I may not be the most patriotic South African, far from it, but like I’ve said before, all you have to go on is the shit you hear from disgruntled ex-pats. I live here, and I’ll say this once - you **don’t know shit **about South Africa, you make me laugh out loud every time you try to come over all bloke-y and concerned, and I wish you’d leave it the fuck out, yeah, mate?
BTW, MrDibble, what’s life like in SA these days? I read an article a few years back about how some South Africans – black South Africans – are so sick of the crime and chaos they long to have Apartheid back; but that was in The American Conservative (the magazine of Pat Buchanan’s paleoconservative movement, which is sometimes accused of racism), so I don’t know how much credence to give it.
Oh, fuck you, you condescending, racist twat. Don’t fucking tell me what I should or shouldn’t know. The last thread we had on this was me posting cites and you pulling speculation and assertions out of your ass.
Huh? Can you read? The appropriate comparison is something like the Norman invasion of England. Underlying population and governing structures left intact, while the ruling class and top layer of government changes. That’s completely different than what happened in Canada, Mexico, or the US.
Oh, well thank you. Here I was thinking that nobody ever practiced colonialism until the British decided to. I await your lecture on how the Sun rises in the East. :rolleyes:
Fine. If you want to use the term Colonialism to mean something different than what we were discussing, that’s up to you. I’m not going to bother with it, since we were discussing European Colonialism.
Hey, my parents immigrated to the US from India in 1967. Guess they were colonists too, right?
It’s OK. Crime is actually on the decrease slightly, economy’s not doing too badly, and the government aren’t total arseholes. Not too bad, as far as things go. The wine is cheap, the fruit is luscious, herb-fed Karroo lamb is ready to roast. Things could be worse. I certainly don’t wish for a return to Apartheid.
Sure, crime’s a problem, a huge one, and so is AIDS, and the government isn’t doing as well as they can at either (although they’re finally giving free ARVs), but on the whole, the current government actually sometimes does some things right (shocking, I know!). They’ve only had 12 years at this democracy game, I don’t think they do too badly. For a country that’s as traumatized as ours, I think we’re doing OK.
{Bolding mine}
In the interests of fighting ignorance, I would point out that the Moriori were pretty successfully dealt to - ie, killed and enslaved en masse - not by British colonists, but by the Maori “cousins”* of the Moriori, who in 1835 chartered a European ship from New Zealand to the Chathams expressly for the purpose of the raid. The Moriori, whose material culture had in three hundred years atrophied in the bare subsistence environment of the Chathams, were powerless to fight back.
You could even call what befell them genocide, although most scholars tiptoe hesitantly around that that term, but it certainly wasn’t a European genocide: the chances are that the Moriori would have survived more or less intact - or at least fared better - as a population under Crown protection, but were, alas, wiped out by their indigenous cousins a few years too early for that.
*The old notion of the Moriori as a pre-Maori Polynesian population has been pretty sucessfully debunked: they were descendants of Maori settlers who came to the the remote and inhospitable Chatham Islands around 1500AD and then largely lost contact with the mainland.
OTOH, it would never have happened if the Brits had not come to NZ with their superior sailing technology, so the Brits are indirectly to blame – comes under the Law of Unintended Consequences.
See what happens when you don’t follow the Prime Directive? 
And the Musket Wars would never have happened if Whitey hadn’t sold muskets to the Maori: they would have had to have been content with killing each other with stone clubs and wooden spears in the time-honoured fashion.
And the Indian Wars, and wars between Indians, would have been far different in North America had the Spanish not introduced horses. Criminy, we could go on with this forever! 
Really, if you get right down to it, the creation of the universe has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.
Except, of course, for digital watches.
Um…the Maori colonised New Zealand because they’d run out of food and space in the other Pacific Islands. I don’t think they had any intentions of leaving because there was no place else to go.
“{He} began the most infernal prose you ever heard to the rest of the company… {about} the cruelties practised in the name of civilisation on helpless nomads who desired only to be left alone to pursue their traditional way of life as peaceful herdsmen, fostering their simple culture, honouring their ancient gods, and generally prancing about like fauns in Arcady. Mercifully, I hadn’t had dinner.”
George MacDonald Fraser, Flashman And The Redskins
I see, you’ve taken
benefit from ‘Colonial’ administration
as meaning
should have ‘Colonial’ administration imposed on them
Not quite the same thing, as the latter is totally impractical as we’ve seen in Iraq, people really don’t like invaders (benign or otherwise).
Try it like this ‘most people would benefit from eating more roughage’ which is true, but very different from force feeding people bran.
An interesting point, it looks as if the Land Acquisition Act of 1992 was the turning point.
http://www.globalintegrity.org/reports/2006/ZIMBABWE/timeline.cfm
It makes one wonder why Mugabe ‘lost it’, or possibly why he was reasonably sensible for 12 years. In his place I would have experimented with different forms of land ownership and agriculture.
They might just have used smaller boats, just as the Mauris used when the invaded NZ and ate the original occupants.
Erm, that never happened, FRDE- there wasn’t anyone in NZ when the Maori got there.