Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 14th, 2012, 05:46 AM   #121
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Just not to get it wrong, let just say that the OP simply couldn't be any more inherently utterly misleading.

Just because there's nothing like "the best treated colonies".

Admittedly maybe aside of mere off-shoots of the metropolis over territory that was not originally theirs (naturally an entirely different stuff)

Regarding any native population of the antipodes, the OP is just an absolute oxymoron.

Analogous to let say "who were the best treated victims of genocide?"

Easy as that.
sylla1 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 14th, 2012, 05:54 AM   #122
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

For the record, the bad name of the paradoxically called Free State of Congo was fundamentally the result of massive hostile propaganda from some colonialist powers far more powerful than tiny Belgium, who for any reason considered that the clever Leopold II had shamelessly cheated them on the acquisition of such immense and rich territory.

Not that the Belgian colonial rule would have been objectively any better (or worse) than let say the French, Dutch, British, German or Portuguese colonial rule, of course.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 05:57 AM   #123
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,691

Quote:
Originally Posted by OUNUPA View Post
And Finland ? Was Finland a Russian colony or not ? And Poland ?? Was Poland the Russian colony or not ? I say :

'Yes, they were !'

In the same way as the Ukraine was.

In this sense it is worth repeating , given the Bad Press which nationalism has received in the XXth century, that for the peoples of the Russian Empire, as indeed of the Soviet Empire, nationalism was a means of human liberation from foreign domination.Sadly to say but Ukraine partly became the land of those 'lost generations' about which lots of buzz was created.

There were more traditional contiguous empires like Russia. The Turkish and Austrian empires were alsp not overseas empires, and were destroyed in WWI. The US operated differently, but like Russia expanded its contiguous territory.

Due to advances in seafaring and a huge advantage in technology and other areas, the European powers were able to develop overseas empires, which had not been possible in the past. These overseas empires became more difficult to maintain in the second half of the 20th century.
betgo is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 06:18 AM   #124

Sargon of Akkad's Avatar
Backworldsman
 
Joined: Jun 2009
From: Glorious England
Posts: 6,985

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Just not to get it wrong, let just say that the OP simply couldn't be any more inherently utterly misleading.

Just because there's nothing like "the best treated colonies".

Admittedly maybe aside of mere off-shoots of the metropolis over territory that was not originally theirs (naturally an entirely different stuff)

Regarding any native population of the antipodes, the OP is just an absolute oxymoron.

Analogous to let say "who were the best treated victims of genocide?"

Easy as that.
You are becoming as tiresome as you are ludicrous.

Are you honestly suggesting that colonialism is synonymous with genocide? Patent absurdity aside, would you venture an explanation for the continued existence of Africans, Indians and Native Americans?

European incompetency, perhaps?
Sargon of Akkad is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 06:53 AM   #125
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sargon of Akkad View Post
You are becoming as tiresome as you are ludicrous.

Are you honestly suggesting that colonialism is synonymous with genocide? Patent absurdity aside, would you venture an explanation for the continued existence of Africans, Indians and Native Americans?

European incompetency, perhaps?
Because fallacious ad hominem insults couldn't be any more unequivocal evidence of the deepest ignorance.

Such easy rule of thumb simply never ever fails.


Please just continue considering yourself ignored.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 08:57 AM   #126

Koko the Monkey's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 99

I do not mean to be an ultra-Patriot, but America clearly was the kindest imperial power. Our treatment of the Filipinos during the Insurrection was horrendous, but besides that, we actually did a really good job. The fact is, besides the Philippines and the Panama Canal Zone, we've kept every major imperial possession. Alaska and Hawaii have become states, Puerto Rico just voted to, and there are no serious independence movements in the Virgin Islands or any of our Pacific island possessions. While some of our Pacific islands became independent, they opted to maintain extremely close military and economic ties with America.

We certainly did steal some land for colonists in these places, but for the most part this was minimal. Hawaii was the one exception, but even there, it was nothing like what the British did in Kenya or the Belgians in the Congo.

The darkest aspect of American imperialism was the racism involved with it. More than anything, we gave away the Philippines because we did not want to have so many Asians in our country. This was true with our earlier possession of Liberia (we were acquiring land to get rid of Blacks), but the hatred of Filipinos reached such an absurd level of acceptance among the public. If only we had been a more accepting people, both Americans and the Filipinos would have been better as a single nation.
Koko the Monkey is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 09:07 AM   #127
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koko the Monkey View Post
I do not mean to be an ultra-Patriot, but America clearly was the kindest imperial power. Our treatment of the Filipinos during the Insurrection was horrendous, but besides that, we actually did a really good job. The fact is, besides the Philippines and the Panama Canal Zone, we've kept every major imperial possession. Alaska and Hawaii have become states, Puerto Rico just voted to, and there are no serious independence movements in the Virgin Islands or any of our Pacific island possessions. While some of our Pacific islands became independent, they opted to maintain extremely close military and economic ties with America.

We certainly did steal some land for colonists in these places, but for the most part this was minimal. Hawaii was the one exception, but even there, it was nothing like what the British did in Kenya or the Belgians in the Congo.

The darkest aspect of American imperialism was the racism involved with it. More than anything, we gave away the Philippines because we did not want to have so many Asians in our country. This was true with our earlier possession of Liberia (we were acquiring land to get rid of Blacks), but the hatred of Filipinos reached such an absurd level of acceptance among the public. If only we had been a more accepting people, both Americans and the Filipinos would have been better as a single nation.
You might have several good points indeed, but to be fair that would be largely because America has been so far (deliberately or not) more an hegemony than an empire.

And of course, America is by definition beyond the OP.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 10:40 AM   #128

Sargon of Akkad's Avatar
Backworldsman
 
Joined: Jun 2009
From: Glorious England
Posts: 6,985

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Because fallacious ad hominem insults couldn't be any more unequivocal evidence of the deepest ignorance.

Such easy rule of thumb simply never ever fails.


Please just continue considering yourself ignored.
Now now, if you've got sources for your wild assertions, could you please present them? You talk about giving evidence all the time, so I'm sure it's pretty natural for you to give some for this or you'd look ludicrous to the Nth degree. Period.

Quote:
Analogous to let say "who were the best treated victims of genocide?"
You are literally stating that Europeans had a deliberate policy to wipe out everyone else on Earth.

I mean actually, literally saying this. There is no nation on Earth that wasn't confronted with European colonialism. You feel that colonialism, definition "the control or governing influence of a nation over a dependent country, territory, or people" can be appropriately replaced with genocide, definition "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group", with no loss of information in the sentence.

Naturally, I'm not actually expecting you to defend something this childish, but it would be nice if you could actually get a bit of perspective and context on historical events that you are clearly overly-emotionally responsive to.
Sargon of Akkad is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 12:03 PM   #129
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Hungary
Posts: 2,094

Austria-Hungary was not a colonial power, there was a very short 5 years attempt in the 18th century to colonize the Nicobar islands (i havent heard about interactions with the natives there), there was also a short lived Austro-Hungarian concession zone in Tianjin. There were no much state investments in them but there weren't conflicts with the natives either, so we were quite harmless there. There were also some not too serious plans to obtain some more colonies but they never materialized, there was not enough strong private capital to invest in these projects and also not much interest from the state.

Bosnia-Herzegovina was not an overseas territory but it was the closest to a colony in her status. it was under the direct control of Austro-Hungarian minister of finance. Initially the occupation was violent as the muslims and the serbs opposed it and there was a significant exodus of the muslim Bosniak population, but after it became consolidated it was quite benevolent to the native populations, lot of economic investments came there, the state supported their institutions and after the annexation they recieved a correct self government where the 3 big religious communities were represented according to their share in population. But unfortunetly it couldn't prevent the rise of nationalism instigated from abroad.

It is also a popular urban legend here in Hungary (i dont know maybe in Austria too) that the Franz Joseph land on the Arctic ocean was an Austro-Hungarian possession, but in reality it wasn't. An Austro-Hungarian expedition discovered it but they never claimed it after.
Tulun is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 03:04 AM   #130

Essa's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Bahrain
Posts: 1,791

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koko the Monkey View Post
I do not mean to be an ultra-Patriot, but America clearly was the kindest imperial power. Our treatment of the Filipinos during the Insurrection was horrendous, but besides that, we actually did a really good job. The fact is, besides the Philippines and the Panama Canal Zone, we've kept every major imperial possession. Alaska and Hawaii have become states, Puerto Rico just voted to, and there are no serious independence movements in the Virgin Islands or any of our Pacific island possessions. While some of our Pacific islands became independent, they opted to maintain extremely close military and economic ties with America.

We certainly did steal some land for colonists in these places, but for the most part this was minimal. Hawaii was the one exception, but even there, it was nothing like what the British did in Kenya or the Belgians in the Congo.

The darkest aspect of American imperialism was the racism involved with it. More than anything, we gave away the Philippines because we did not want to have so many Asians in our country. This was true with our earlier possession of Liberia (we were acquiring land to get rid of Blacks), but the hatred of Filipinos reached such an absurd level of acceptance among the public. If only we had been a more accepting people, both Americans and the Filipinos would have been better as a single nation.
What about Iraq ??!!......Is that a good example of a "Kind" Imperial Power !
Essa is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
colonial, colonies, european, power, treated, worsts


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How did the colonisation of Africa give European countries power? kate1001 History Help 5 November 18th, 2012 03:16 PM
What would it have been like had India been ruled by any other colonial power? St. Anselm Speculative History 25 March 23rd, 2012 11:52 AM
Which European nation has the most power. rory1497 European History 85 May 7th, 2011 09:45 PM
Why are Chinese Dynasties treated differently from European ones? Kiwi Asian History 31 November 2nd, 2010 10:19 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.