• It was good

    Even though thousand of slaves were brought into north america to grow crops and 10 million of them died they were growing potatoes which led to the survival of millions and millions of people all around the world, and even though it introduced many diseases it also introduced many cures

  • I support this reasoning with many reasons, not entirely though....

    Colonization is not ENTIRELY good but it had some benefits such as giving materials to first nations and helping them with hunting and food.It gave families a place to call home.Imagine a homeless person with kids coming to your door and asking for food or some place to live and you had a big house with money,What would you say? Yes or no?

  • It most certainly could be!

    Yes, colonialism caused many people to be killed and other bad things, but look on the bright side. Without it, we wouldn't be here. I live in Canada, which was "discovered" because of colonialism. Without Canada being discovered, we wouldn't have the telephone, standard time, zippers, Superman, pacemakers or POUTINE. So, while it caused many people's lives to be not good, it also caused things that made lives better.

  • We need colonialism

    We wouldn't be here without colonialism. I mean think about it every thing happens for a reason. If the Boston massacre never happened neither would the tea act or the Boston tea party and without those people would still be marching around as slaves. So colonialism may not be the smartest idea but it defiantly shaped history and it still is.

  • Call it "immigration"

    Colonialism was carried out over an extended period of time when people were generally not very enlightened. Now, with hindsight, we can see that countries that were colonised, properly with long term colonists, are among the most stable and economically active countries in the world. For example, uncomfortable though it is to say, South Africa is the richest country in Africa. I am NOT (with emphasis) saying that some countries are too backward/poor to exist by themselves-- nothing like that-- I am saying that a bigger and more dynamic population will always reap benefits. Also it is shown that modern immigrants tend to come the upper levels of their society, so any country should accept "colonists" with open arms.

  • I don't think so

    Although colonialism could be a good thing after a long (very long) time, it is NOT morally a good thing. Colonialism is a reason that we live in the USA right now, it is probably the reason for people living around the world. If we did not have colonialism there might not have ever been people living in different parts of the world. But most colonialism that has happened in the past has not been done in a morally good way. During colonialism people were enslaved, murdered, sexually assaulted and taken away from their families. Colonialism could be referred to as a politically good thing, but it is definitely not a morally good thing.

    Posted by: t123
  • Yes sometimes it is

    Yes sometimes it is but the country colonized must be in civil or political unrest and you should not force you culture or religion on the people colonized but instead share it. Colonization can cause a major boost to the economy of both countries involved. It also can cause a major technological inhancment in the colonized county.

  • If you bothered studying history you would know your liking of colonization is only based from the need of greed and superiority.

    History has done almost everything to show that colonization was based off of greed and superiority not in the best interest of the people they conquered. No Britain did not conquer Kenya or India due to wanting to advance the technology, or the education and cleanliness. They did it for more land and domination, discarding the actual human lives they would impact. The British empire during the Boer war put thousands of Boer people in concentration camps where many died. And this argument is not limited to Britain, the Dutch caused apartheid in South Africa, and there is no way any reasonable person can rationalize the discrimination of THE NATIVE PEOPLES. Australia's colonization led to severe problems for their Aboriginal community, did any of you know if you tried raising your child as Aboriginal till about the 70s they would take your child away and put them in a white family. When Belgium left Rwanda leaving almost no government there own Tutsi and Hutu laws almost directly correlated to the reasons for the Rwandan genocide. Thousands and thousands of horrible events could have been prevented if there wasn't such a sense of greed and so many innocent lives and diverse cultures could be saved.
    ~Vaishali S., 15

  • No it is not

    I think that colonialism is not a good thing because it disrupts what they are already trying to fix. When the people come to take over, the people have no more freedom, they have to listen the people that take over. And the people that take over want money, resources, and land, so that makes it even worse for them because of the fact that they are going through all of their resources, and losing their land faster making them even more poor!

  • Possibly in other things, but not morally.

    I believe that colonialism can benefit people economically speaking, but when it comes to right and wrong, not so much. I believe that they should not take freedom away from the natives, and claim already colonised land. But this is not about what I think, this is about what it is, so I ask you, do you think it is kind to take everything away from innocent people and force strange customs on to them.

  • GENERALLY, Colonialism is morally not a good thing

    The Google dictionary states that moral means; "being concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character." Has Colonialism ever really benefited the natives morally? Generally, the answer is no. The motivation behind colonialism is God, Gold and Glory. Does that include "respecting the natives in a moral manner"? No, it doesn't. Disease was transmitted, the natives were slaughtered. Everywhere the explorers went, death followed. 'There were 60,000 people living on this island, including the Indians,' noted a Spanish priest named Bartolomé de Las Casas, 'so that from 1494 to 1508, over three million people had perished from war, slavery, and the mines.' d though there was war and slavery and overwork, the biggest killer by far was disease. The Western Hemisphere had been completely free of infectious diseases that were common in Europe. So the indigenous people had absolutely no exposure or resistance to illnesses like smallpox, which spread from tribe to tribe along the trade routes, even in places where Europeans never even set foot. Of course, this technically wasn't the Europeans fault, they didn't know that disease would be transmitted. The point is, the natives were not respected morally or physically, instead they were slaughtered and disrespected. -Anahita

  • Generally no because...

    -Sometimes the ruler of the country can show no sympathy towards the habitants that live in that area and just take all their gold and enslave the people at times.
    -Some rulers do not care about anything else than POWER and wealth which can be bad if the country is being run badly.
    -Some empires would go around invading native areas and killing/enslaving the natives to help them dig for gold.
    -If the empire treats the people badly it eventually turns into a war or a rebellion.
    -Sometimes it isn't morally a good thing because many people can get killed or that the empire does not care about the country's health.
    -E.G. The Roman Empire conquered many regions and some parts of this colony was not morally a good thing for the native people who were originally there.

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