Are some countries better off under colonial rule than self-governance?

Asked by: General-Z
  • Independence is an Obsolete Fallacy

    The notion of independent nations and countries is antiquated and regressive. The closer to a singular, centralized governing body that a country gets to, the smoother the country operates (consider the USA, state governance is necessary due to scope, but the Federal powers maintain order overall). The notion that any country is "independent," particularly when it cannot come anywhere near competing within the global theater (or lack significant resources and/or arms to gain leverage) is ridiculously naive.

  • They Don't Have What it Takes

    The world is getting smaller all the time and there is more competition for space and resources. Countries such as most of Africa have fallen behind the rest of civilization and do not show signs of being able to catch up. Illiteracy, lack of infrastructure and sanitation, superstition, corruption. I am sorry but if the British had been in charge you wouldn't have seen natives attacking doctors who came to help them during the Ebola crisis.

  • These Countries Cannot Take Care Of Them Selves.

    Many Countries especially in Africa will never be able to Contribute to the world. Unfortunately Imperialism was the cause of some of the problems in these nations but no one can change the past. The Problems being faced in third world nations are worse than ever. The same countries that were imperialist are at the forefront of humanitarian work, but all the fighting and corruption just makes any type of aid a waste. The best option is for Another country just to re-colonize the area. The only difference is that this time the colonization should be peaceful and benefit the areas like Hong Kong and Myanmar.

  • Have you seen Africa these days?

    When we still ruled them at least there was peace. There were also like 500% less genocides. We mostly kept the peace between the Christians and the Muslims. They also had much stronger economies because they were 1. Monitored and controlled by us and 2. Actually produced more and had more skilled labourers because of the schools and British business owners. I do agree that some colonies weren't treated in the nicest way but sometimes force is necessary. And I personally think we should re-colonise parts of Africa. They would be much better off.

  • Certain nations are often wealthier when under a foreign power

    Take Burma for example. Before 1947, it was under British rule and traded excessively with other British colonies. Now, Burma is among the poorest countries in Asia despite plenty of natural resources of export goods. What happened to Burma? The answer is poor leadership after independence. Leaders such as Ne Win and Than Shwe have cause inflation and increased unnecessary military spending. Now, compare Myanmar to Hong Kong, which stayed under British rule for a much longer time.

  • Colonialism is what causes these aftershocks:

    When looking at the state of States who were colonies at one time most of them are in heavy disrepair. This is because "once, always" somewhat takes a hold and when the colonialism ended they just left leaving people to fend for themselves. There was no transition. There was no training of new leaders. If it never happened to begin with they would likely be better off.

  • Colonialism has traditionally led to oppression

    Colonialism was fine when it was just settlement, but when imperialism became the de-facto method of colonization, then there are moral issues.

    The English settlement of New England was in no way morally negative. The Danish settlement of Greenland was also peaceful.

    However the Dutch invasions in India and southeast Asia were violent and oppressive.

    The Spanish conquest of South America was genocidal.

    The English were brutal in India and other Asian nations, not to mention their neighbors in Ireland.

    France is also guilty of imperialism.

    Peaceful colonialism and settlement is a logical progression of humanity, but war, conquest and genocide are not.

    But one must be educated about such matters. One cannot claim all colonial powers are evil until the end of time due to the human rights violations committed by ancestors.

    Imperialism does not equal colonialism, and vice versa. They describe very different concepts.

  • This is a segregationist's thing to say

    No, colonial rule is nothing but rape, oppression and pillage. It's no coincidence that the same countries they did those things also had groups that went around lynching people of other races. So no, it's never good to rule anyone, ever! That's like saying it's OK to lynch black people.

  • Not Every Country Suffered So Bad

    Not every former colony ended as bad as some of the other countries. Botswana for instance was a largely ignored by the British and had one of the worst living conditions among the colonies. Since independence, they were able to sell their newly found diamonds and other natural resources leading them to have one of the highest GDP per capita among African Nations. Like previously stated colonialism led to some of the conditions existing today, but some counties have prospered under independence.

  • Let them be

    The reason why so many countries that once where under the colonial rule are now devastated and struggling with political an economical crisis is that for so long they did not have the oportunity to make their own descisions but, on the opposite, those decisions were forced upon them.

    Each country, civilization, society, nation, is defined by the people that are part of them. In order to increase their quality of life, in order to improve their institutions and governments, these people sholud learn what their society is like and what works better for them. This is a process. The only thing that a new sort of colonialism would do is slow down the process of self-recognition and therefore self-improvement.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.