Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

European colonialism, good or bad?

beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2015 9:53:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The colonisation of many areas of the world by European countries is a contentious issue. It can be argued that the annexing of newfound territory such as the Americas, Australia, new Zealand and the Pacific islands by colonial European powers such as Spain, France and Britain paved the way for the industrial revolution and the gateway for modern high living standards, health care, technology and knowledge through the vast resources these countries exploited, The world trade these resources created and the settlement of these lands by many European migrants. It can also be argued that colonialism was a negative thing due to the generally barbaric and indiscriminate approach to colonisation of territory. The treatment of native inhabitants of areas colonized was varied but generally hostile and unfair. The mistreatment of Africans is well known and rightly condemned but the fate of native Americans and native Australians is generally under recognized in history. Even today these people face discrimination and inequality. Overall I think European colonialism was a positive thing for the human race but it clearly had many negatives.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 4:50:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/20/2015 9:53:14 PM, beng100 wrote:
The colonisation of many areas of the world by European countries is a contentious issue. It can be argued that the annexing of newfound territory such as the Americas, Australia, new Zealand and the Pacific islands by colonial European powers such as Spain, France and Britain paved the way for the industrial revolution and the gateway for modern high living standards, health care, technology and knowledge through the vast resources these countries exploited, The world trade these resources created and the settlement of these lands by many European migrants. It can also be argued that colonialism was a negative thing due to the generally barbaric and indiscriminate approach to colonisation of territory. The treatment of native inhabitants of areas colonized was varied but generally hostile and unfair. The mistreatment of Africans is well known and rightly condemned but the fate of native Americans and native Australians is generally under recognized in history. Even today these people face discrimination and inequality. Overall I think European colonialism was a positive thing for the human race but it clearly had many negatives.

Historically, it's been beneficial. I'm not well-versed about modern colonialism, but it was overall necessary and good in the past.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 7:11:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 4:50:18 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:53:14 PM, beng100 wrote:
The colonisation of many areas of the world by European countries is a contentious issue. It can be argued that the annexing of newfound territory such as the Americas, Australia, new Zealand and the Pacific islands by colonial European powers such as Spain, France and Britain paved the way for the industrial revolution and the gateway for modern high living standards, health care, technology and knowledge through the vast resources these countries exploited, The world trade these resources created and the settlement of these lands by many European migrants. It can also be argued that colonialism was a negative thing due to the generally barbaric and indiscriminate approach to colonisation of territory. The treatment of native inhabitants of areas colonized was varied but generally hostile and unfair. The mistreatment of Africans is well known and rightly condemned but the fate of native Americans and native Australians is generally under recognized in history. Even today these people face discrimination and inequality. Overall I think European colonialism was a positive thing for the human race but it clearly had many negatives.

Historically, it's been beneficial. I'm not well-versed about modern colonialism, but it was overall necessary and good in the past.

Yes i think it was one of the key reasons for the advances in technology that lead to todays developed world.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 4:30:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/23/2015 7:11:21 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 10/21/2015 4:50:18 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 10/20/2015 9:53:14 PM, beng100 wrote:
The colonisation of many areas of the world by European countries is a contentious issue. It can be argued that the annexing of newfound territory such as the Americas, Australia, new Zealand and the Pacific islands by colonial European powers such as Spain, France and Britain paved the way for the industrial revolution and the gateway for modern high living standards, health care, technology and knowledge through the vast resources these countries exploited, The world trade these resources created and the settlement of these lands by many European migrants. It can also be argued that colonialism was a negative thing due to the generally barbaric and indiscriminate approach to colonisation of territory. The treatment of native inhabitants of areas colonized was varied but generally hostile and unfair. The mistreatment of Africans is well known and rightly condemned but the fate of native Americans and native Australians is generally under recognized in history. Even today these people face discrimination and inequality. Overall I think European colonialism was a positive thing for the human race but it clearly had many negatives.

Historically, it's been beneficial. I'm not well-versed about modern colonialism, but it was overall necessary and good in the past.

Yes i think it was one of the key reasons for the advances in technology that lead to todays developed world.

Indeed. I think I agree with you. You should check out this debate... http://tinyurl.com...
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2015 10:31:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It was neither. It was merely the consequence of a warlike civilization gaining power and wealth. It's not the first time in history that such a thing has happened, and we're fools to believe it'll be the last.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 6:07:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
European colonialism led to the creation of the United States, Canada, Mexico, etc, all of which are strong and wealthy nations. Additionally, Western influence brought poverty ridden nations such as Egypt, Morocco, Nigeria, and South Africa to become wealthy nations, with South Africa being a nuclear power at one point.

Western interactions with Japan made it a world power at the start of the 20th century, and a heavily Western influenced China is now becoming the world's largest economy.

Our Imperialism/colonialism was never a bad thing.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2015 1:03:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It had both good and bad causes to it I guess. My opinion of it overall is that if Europeans never existed, then someone else would had just done it instead. Even Europe was a subject to a colonization attempt three times through history. First by the Arabs, then by the Mongols, then by the Ottoman Turks.

There are some people who like to claim things like that racial supremacy wouldn't exist anywhere in 2015 if Europeans never existed. But that was a thing before the events too.
Socraticdeathwish
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2015 9:12:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 6:07:44 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
European colonialism led to the creation of the United States, Canada, Mexico, etc, all of which are strong and wealthy nations. Additionally, Western influence brought poverty ridden nations such as Egypt, Morocco, Nigeria, and South Africa to become wealthy nations, with South Africa being a nuclear power at one point.

Western interactions with Japan made it a world power at the start of the 20th century, and a heavily Western influenced China is now becoming the world's largest economy.

Our Imperialism/colonialism was never a bad thing.

Wow, quite a lot wrong here. Mexico is a strong and wealthy nation? None of the African nations you mentioned are wealthy in any meaningful sense of the word either. You then chose one of the few countries that wasn"t colonised as an example of what colonialism can do for a country.

If you read Why Nations Fail, you will see that there is "good"colonialism, as was practised in North America, and "bad"colonialism, as was practiced in the rest of the Americas. When I say "good," I mean good for the majority of people living there today, rather than good for the Native Americans, which in population terms at least, it clearly wasn"t.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2015 10:02:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 9:12:16 PM, Socraticdeathwish wrote:
At 11/25/2015 6:07:44 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
European colonialism led to the creation of the United States, Canada, Mexico, etc, all of which are strong and wealthy nations. Additionally, Western influence brought poverty ridden nations such as Egypt, Morocco, Nigeria, and South Africa to become wealthy nations, with South Africa being a nuclear power at one point.

Western interactions with Japan made it a world power at the start of the 20th century, and a heavily Western influenced China is now becoming the world's largest economy.

Our Imperialism/colonialism was never a bad thing.

Wow, quite a lot wrong here. Mexico is a strong and wealthy nation? None of the African nations you mentioned are wealthy in any meaningful sense of the word either. You then chose one of the few countries that wasn"t colonised as an example of what colonialism can do for a country.

If you read Why Nations Fail, you will see that there is "good"colonialism, as was practised in North America, and "bad"colonialism, as was practiced in the rest of the Americas. When I say "good," I mean good for the majority of people living there today, rather than good for the Native Americans, which in population terms at least, it clearly wasn"t.

Mexico is one of the world's 10 strongest economies, and the increase of investment has drastically bettered the status of living for many of its inhabitants. When one states wealth, they look at relative wealth of the nation itself, not of its people. Usually when a nation is extremely wealthy, its people are living better as well.

Nigeria has a GDP of ~500 billion and almost all of the African billionaires are Nigerian oil corporates.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Socraticdeathwish
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2015 11:00:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/26/2015 10:02:10 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 11/26/2015 9:12:16 PM, Socraticdeathwish wrote:
At 11/25/2015 6:07:44 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
European colonialism led to the creation of the United States, Canada, Mexico, etc, all of which are strong and wealthy nations. Additionally, Western influence brought poverty ridden nations such as Egypt, Morocco, Nigeria, and South Africa to become wealthy nations, with South Africa being a nuclear power at one point.

Western interactions with Japan made it a world power at the start of the 20th century, and a heavily Western influenced China is now becoming the world's largest economy.

Our Imperialism/colonialism was never a bad thing.

Wow, quite a lot wrong here. Mexico is a strong and wealthy nation? None of the African nations you mentioned are wealthy in any meaningful sense of the word either. You then chose one of the few countries that wasn"t colonised as an example of what colonialism can do for a country.

If you read Why Nations Fail, you will see that there is "good"colonialism, as was practised in North America, and "bad"colonialism, as was practiced in the rest of the Americas. When I say "good," I mean good for the majority of people living there today, rather than good for the Native Americans, which in population terms at least, it clearly wasn"t.


Mexico is one of the world's 10 strongest economies, and the increase of investment has drastically bettered the status of living for many of its inhabitants. When one states wealth, they look at relative wealth of the nation itself, not of its people. Usually when a nation is extremely wealthy, its people are living better as well.

Nigeria has a GDP of ~500 billion and almost all of the African billionaires are Nigerian oil corporates.

May I introduce you to a far better measure of wealth: GDP per capita.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Mexico is ranked 66th and Nigeria 124th in the world. The problem with measuring wealth your way is this. Imagine there are only two nations in the world: one is Switzerland, and the other covers all the other continents but has the level of development of say, Afghanistan or Nepal. The second nation may have a GDP comparable to the first, but which one would you like to live in?

Unless you take the question to mean, European colonialism, good or bad for certain nations as nations (even when they didn"t exist before colonialism, which would the question moot), or European colonialism, good or bad for a few rich people in each nation, I don"t see where you are going with this argument.
SocialTeacher
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 7:49:20 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
To you to decide, do you want US to exist ? Oh, maybe they would exist without european colonialism... But, as developped as now. IIt's the some case for a lot of countries !
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 7:41:18 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 10/20/2015 9:53:14 PM, beng100 wrote:
The colonisation of many areas of the world by European countries is a contentious issue. It can be argued that the annexing of newfound territory such as the Americas, Australia, new Zealand and the Pacific islands by colonial European powers such as Spain, France and Britain paved the way for the industrial revolution and the gateway for modern high living standards, health care, technology and knowledge through the vast resources these countries exploited, The world trade these resources created and the settlement of these lands by many European migrants. It can also be argued that colonialism was a negative thing due to the generally barbaric and indiscriminate approach to colonisation of territory. The treatment of native inhabitants of areas colonized was varied but generally hostile and unfair. The mistreatment of Africans is well known and rightly condemned but the fate of native Americans and native Australians is generally under recognized in history. Even today these people face discrimination and inequality. Overall I think European colonialism was a positive thing for the human race but it clearly had many negatives.

- It had positive outcomes & negative ones. But, historically, the negative largely outweigh the positive. Destruction of populations, of cultures, of traditions, of civilisations, of histories, of economies... are examples of the many negative aspects of colonialism. Colonial powers purged the resources of the colonised nations & reaped them for their own benefits, which created an unprecedented imbalance in worldwide wealth. The suffering the colonial powers brought to their conquered far exceeds the happiness they brought. They destabilised nations, slaughtered, enslaved, plundered & humiliated them. In contrast, if you take for instance, the Arab Conquests, while similar to European Colonialism in scope & influence, the outcomes differ greatly. Whereas Europeans made the countries they conquered poorer & weaker for the benefit of their own (with few exceptions, such as the US), the Arabs, just few decades after their conquests, made all the countries they conquered prosperous & powerful, after having been mostly waste lands. Spain was a barbaric land with practically no economy when the Arab arrived, in less than a century, they made it the richest nation in Europe, while keeping the native population intact. This goes for Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Maghreb, Iran, Central Asia, India... as well.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 7:47:16 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 11/25/2015 6:07:44 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
European colonialism led to the creation of the United States, Canada, Mexico, etc, all of which are strong and wealthy nations.

- AFTER having gained their independence. The nations subject to colonial powers were neither strong nor wealthy, & are still struggling to get out of the hole those powers dug up for them.

Additionally, Western influence brought poverty ridden nations such as Egypt, Morocco,

- Pick a book, read history. Egypt & Morocco were wealthy nations when colonialism begin. Recall the Ottoman Empire?! Morocco was the 5th richest country in the 18th century.

Nigeria, and South Africa to become wealthy nations, with South Africa being a nuclear power at one point.

- That, AFTER having gained their independence. & both countries are still poor to this day.

Western interactions with Japan made it a world power at the start of the 20th century, and a heavily Western influenced China is now becoming the world's largest economy.

- Interaction, Trade... are one thing. Invasion & Occupation are another. Japan rose to power when they were independent, not under European influence.

Our Imperialism/colonialism was never a bad thing.

- You couldn't be more wrong.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 7:49:36 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 11/26/2015 10:02:10 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:

Mexico is one of the world's 10 strongest economies,

- & India is the 3rd, & China the 1st. That has nothing to do with Colonialism.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
keithprosser
Posts: 1,948
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 7:26:17 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Where Nairobi is was a undeveloped swamp with a few trees and animals dotted around. It is now a modern vibrant city (albeit not without its problems). Is good or bad that what was a swamp is now a thriving centre of industry and finance?

The world is different because of colonialism, but there is no yes/no answer to whether those changes were for the better.]

The colonies and their people were exploited and some things colonialists did were egregious,but don't lose sight of the fact that at the same time the working class at home were also worked hard for poor pay in bad conditions. Child labour - and true labour it was - was just as endemic in Victorian England as it was anywhere else in her Empire. These were not good times to be out of the ruling elite whatever your skin colour.

Different regimes operated the colonies differently. No colonial regime was altruistic, but the worst was that which operated in the Belgian Congo, in which the indigenous population were effectively enslaved en mass with no political or other rights granted to them and could be - and were expected to be - exploited and treated brutally to an extent that is shocking even today. It is well described in Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness'.

As a Brit, I have mixed feelings about our Imperial past. No one alive today was alive at the height of the British Empire. I am far too young - at nearly 60 - to have personal acquaintence with those times. But it pleases me that the British Commonwealth is still going strong. The French and Spanish don't have the like. It tells me that although we British did a lot of things we are to be ashamed of, at least they were mostly things that could be forgiven. The deep seated antagonism between (for example) France and Algeria is absent.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 1:23:50 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
There are many good and bad examples of European colonialism, and sometimes it might have been in between.

Because enlightenment philosophers have drastically changed the culture of Europe, and the western world was the first to industrialize, the west has went ahead economically out of all other countries. As a result, western influence has led many new nations to prosper by bringing more advanced technology, and Classical Liberal ideas.

The countries of the United States, Canada, Australia, and etc, would never exist without western imperialism, and the United States is arguable the most "important" one here. The USA was among the first countries to industrialize and advance the use of computers, leading to the information age. And as a result, many important inventions/innovations have came from the United States. Canada and Australia are also fairly prosperous countries, which wouldn't exist without European colonialism.
Hong Kong was also another good example, because the British very rapidly turned Hong Kong from a bunch of Chinese farmers, to one of the wealthiest areas in Asia. China on the other hand was doing very poorly economically and had underwent recent instability, so they could not have heavily invested to build Hong Kong's infrastructure and turn it into an "Asian Tiger." China had also heavily suffered when Mao's regime was in power, which further slowed down their development. With Hong Kong being a British territory, they were not suspect to the awful communist policies of Mao, which would have destroyed any economic development at the time in Hong Kong.

Of course there are negative effects too. The colonists and early Americans were not too nice to the aboriginals. But of course, many Native Americans refused to get with times as well, as they would dance around fires instead of adopting western technology. There has also been some extent of the European colonial powers destabilizing and exploiting nations as times.

Then there's also former colonies that are "in between" suffering from negative and positive effects of European colonialism. India would be a prime example, considering the British had looted India and exploited some resources, as well as de-stabilizing India to an extent. The British however did build upon the infrastructure, and they brung Classical Liberal ideas such as Democracy. So it's questionable if India really would have been better off or worse under British occupation.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 4:58:37 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Good, very good.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,681
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 4:33:07 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Imperialism would not have been a necessary component for industrialization, hence, the justification of colonialism being that "it spread industrialization" is generally a moot point. Japan effectively industrialized long before taking their first imperialist endeavors. Most of the countries that Europeans claimed to "civilize" or "industrialized" were built for the sole purpose of extracting and exporting resources as quickly as possible, certainly not conducive to modernity.

*Some* benefits did happen with Colonialism, but most of said benefits were almost entirely exclusive to the West, where it was good for the West it was terrible for 80% of everyone else.

So on balance, it was a terrible thing.
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
SolonKR
Posts: 4,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 9:09:34 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
The end can never justify the means (although we're still facing repercussions in terms of China, the Middle East, and so on, so the question of "has colonialism improved the world?" depends on how you frame the question. The wrongness of colonialism also depends on your own definition of the word).

It is bad to build society on the basis of exploitation of peoples and violation of their rights, so it is unquestionably bad regardless of the consequences. I can't believe I'm saying this, but you all could benefit from reading Brave New World (I hated the book, but it illustrates this point well).
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 9:37:00 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
evil motivated by greed and do-goodery.

a century ago, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile and Brazil were in the 20 richest countries on Earth.

America is 1984.

the new world is over. only Canada, subject of the film Idiocracy, remains.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 9:40:33 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
And of course nobody learned anything from it.

thus the white man's burden becomes the white man's guilt.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 9:44:28 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 9:37:00 PM, someloser wrote:
evil motivated by greed and do-goodery.

a century ago, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile and Brazil were in the 20 richest countries on Earth.

That was after colonialism, not before it. Those nations didn't even exist before colonialism, and neither did any form of industry and major technological prowess in the Americas.


America is 1984.

the new world is over. only Canada, subject of the film Idiocracy, remains.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 9:53:49 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 9:44:28 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 9:37:00 PM, someloser wrote:
evil motivated by greed and do-goodery.

a century ago, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile and Brazil were in the 20 richest countries on Earth.

That was after colonialism, not before it.
Yeah, precisely. All ex-colonial.

Those nations didn't even exist before colonialism, and neither did any form of industry and major technological prowess in the Americas.
the nations didn't need to exist...what happened to make that the case was barbaric as well...and as far as innovation is concerned, none of it necessarily depended on the new world states.

Japan now produces more patents than the US. with a third of the people.

half of these aren't even "nations" anymore. the "best" of the bunch is the frankensteinian monster state 'mer'castan or the canucks.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 9:54:34 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
... the "best" of the bunch are...
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 10:06:36 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 9:53:49 PM, someloser wrote:
At 6/14/2016 9:44:28 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 9:37:00 PM, someloser wrote:
evil motivated by greed and do-goodery.

a century ago, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile and Brazil were in the 20 richest countries on Earth.

That was after colonialism, not before it.
Yeah, precisely. All ex-colonial.

Those nations didn't even exist before colonialism, and neither did any form of industry and major technological prowess in the Americas.
the nations didn't need to exist...what happened to make that the case was barbaric as well...and as far as innovation is concerned, none of it necessarily depended on the new world states.

There is no scientific evidence indicating that the indigenous people of the Americas would have founded industry and machinery, mainly as a result of their lack of expansion in the academic field. The European colonists brought superior agrarian techniques as well as more efficient and productive methods of work.

Japan now produces more patents than the US. with a third of the people.

That is because of Japan having a large technological sector, all due to the Western emphasis on Japanese growth following the latter half of the 19th century. The decline of feudal Japanese culture was exacerbated by the major influence that the United States in particular had on Japan.

half of these aren't even "nations" anymore. the "best" of the bunch is the frankensteinian monster state 'mer'castan or the canucks.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
SolonKR
Posts: 4,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2016 9:55:18 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 10:06:36 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Can you explain to me how you believe in rights, and yet simultaneously seem to not have a problem when they're flagrantly being violated in certain cases, for example colonialism? After all, if rights aren't for everyone, they aren't really rights.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
Hiu
Posts: 979
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 12:32:43 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 10/20/2015 9:53:14 PM, beng100 wrote:
The colonisation of many areas of the world by European countries is a contentious issue. It can be argued that the annexing of newfound territory such as the Americas, Australia, new Zealand and the Pacific islands by colonial European powers such as Spain, France and Britain paved the way for the industrial revolution and the gateway for modern high living standards, health care, technology and knowledge through the vast resources these countries exploited, The world trade these resources created and the settlement of these lands by many European migrants. It can also be argued that colonialism was a negative thing due to the generally barbaric and indiscriminate approach to colonisation of territory. The treatment of native inhabitants of areas colonized was varied but generally hostile and unfair. The mistreatment of Africans is well known and rightly condemned but the fate of native Americans and native Australians is generally under recognized in history. Even today these people face discrimination and inequality. Overall I think European colonialism was a positive thing for the human race but it clearly had many negatives.

European colonialism, at least the motivation behind it, was bad which outweighs the good. Some say it was good, however we are seeing the combination of cultures coming together to advance a community such as countries like Australia, U.K. U.S. etc.

"Many cultures were robbed because of white European colonialism and anyone here that says it was beneficial must be white because only white people would say dumb sh*t like that."

-People of Color