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 March 21st, 2012, 07:36 AM   #1
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Somewhere in the former First French Empire
Posts: 3,537
Which European Colonial power treated their colonies the best and which the worst?s


Recently I saw a documentary about Imperialism and it was mentioned that both the Netherlands and Britain were in comparison to their colleagues on the imperialistic front the most just and gave the most freedom the the citizens in their Empire (outside Europe of course). It also said France and Belgium treated their colonies the worst. It was argued that in the Dutch (Indonesia, Suriname, Dutch Antilles) and British (British Guyanna, South Africa, India, Australia, Canada etc) Empire the locals enjoyed much freedom, were except for war time not subdued to massive amounts of deaths and could live a reasonable life. Then for the French and Belgians it was argued that both nations centralized their colonies to the limit, oppressed the people within and most money they made from their colonies was spend in the homeland and not in the colony itself. But the question remains, is this true? Or are their arguments that entire different nations like Portugal or Italy were much extreme or more liberal towards their colonies.

Although I appreciate all the information from our British forum members, please let this topic not become another British Empire topic (from which their are already so many), but please try to focus also on the other European Empires.
jeroenrottgering is offline  
Remove Ads
Old March 21st, 2012, 07:55 AM   #2
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeroenrottgering View Post
Recently I saw a documentary about Imperialism and it was mentioned that both the Netherlands and Britain were in comparison to their colleagues on the imperialistic front the most just and gave the most freedom the the citizens in their Empire (outside Europe of course). It also said France and Belgium treated their colonies the worst. It was argued that in the Dutch (Indonesia, Suriname, Dutch Antilles) and British (British Guyanna, South Africa, India, Australia, Canada etc) Empire the locals enjoyed much freedom, were except for war time not subdued to massive amounts of deaths and could live a reasonable life. Then for the French and Belgians it was argued that both nations centralized their colonies to the limit, oppressed the people within and most money they made from their colonies was spend in the homeland and not in the colony itself. But the question remains, is this true? Or are their arguments that entire different nations like Portugal or Italy were much extreme or more liberal towards their colonies.

Although I appreciate all the information from our British forum members, please let this topic not become another British Empire topic (from which their are already so many), but please try to focus also on the other European Empires.
"It also said" usually implied deliberate unashamed apologetic propaganda from any particular colonial power against her competitors; the crueler the colonialist practices of other powers could have been depicted, the more you would have been able to unilaterally justify any kind of abuse against your own victims.

It is evident that the treatment of the European offshoots (fundamentally the British dominions) was entirely different stuf from the antive populations (even within the same dominions).
The main exception would be the Boer (mostly Dutch derived) population during their second war; the interesting point here is that, contrary to the case of the bona fide non-European native populations, the abuse against the Boer was extremely well documented (as they received mych more sympathy from other European and European derived populations around the world) including the infamous inauguration of the concentration camps.

Talking specifically about the treatment of the non-European native populations, the more the issue is explored the clearer it becomes that all colonialisms were essentially the same; the treatment of the colonial victims depended fundamentally on the psychology of each & any individual colonial master, not their nationality.

The major powers often manipulated information against their competitors as a mere justification of their own greed & ambition; the most notorious example would be the Free State of Congo, when some powerful competitors were utterly humiliatingly bested by the territorial acquisition strategy of the king of the tiny humble Belgium.

Another clearly manipulated case were the Herrero in SW German Africa (modern Namibia); after WW2, it is clear that an international accusation of genocide asking for retribution had much greater chance of success against Germany than any other former colonial power.

The more the issue is explored, the more it becomes clear that apologetic propaganda aside, all colonialisms were fundamentally equivalent for the victim non-European native populations.

Last edited by sylla1; March 21st, 2012 at 08:02 AM.
sylla1 is offline  
Old March 21st, 2012, 08:05 AM   #3
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: Bolton, UK
Posts: 1,749

Quote:
Recently I saw a documentary about Imperialism and it was mentioned that both the Netherlands and Britain were in comparison to their colleagues on the imperialistic front the most just and gave the most freedom the the citizens in their Empire (outside Europe of course). It also said France and Belgium treated their colonies the worst
I agree.
Brunel is offline  
Old March 21st, 2012, 08:07 AM   #4
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunel View Post
I agree.
That was unexpected...
sylla1 is offline  
Old March 21st, 2012, 09:57 AM   #5
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Somewhere in the former First French Empire
Posts: 3,537

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
That was unexpected...
Don't be hatefull Sylla .
jeroenrottgering is offline  
Old March 21st, 2012, 11:09 AM   #6

Tercio's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Leon, Spain
Posts: 516

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeroenrottgering View Post
Don't be hatefull Sylla .
How is he being hateful? everyone else here seems to be pro-imperialism...If you think the dutch were one of the more humane empires, than you really need to go to Indonesia. I for one have been, and some of the stuff you hear about is significantly worse than that of Australia and Mexican imperialist...Keeping in mind that ALL are bad...'ALL' doesn't exclude Britain either fanboys
Tercio is offline  
Old March 21st, 2012, 11:30 AM   #7

Inflames's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2010
From: Canada
Posts: 1,346

Its hard to judge really, some powers had specific intentions in mind when establishing colonies and plans to govern them. Look at Australia it was meant to be a Penal Colony, For the French Canada was supposed to be a giant trading post, so on and so forth. Perhaps the French did not govern Canada as harshly as they did in other places as its only value to them was to retrieve furs and raw materials... there is no reason to rule with an iron fist when you meet your profit margin nicely.
Inflames is offline  
Old March 21st, 2012, 12:06 PM   #8

Bismarck's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: rangiora
Posts: 2,847

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tercio View Post
...If you think the dutch were one of the more humane empires, than you really need to go to Indonesia. I for one have been, and some of the stuff you hear about is significantly worse than that of Australia and Mexican imperialist...
Yeah, because 'hearing about' stuff years after an event from people who weren't even there is just soooo reliable.

The fact of the matter is different locales experienced at different times varying degrees of oppression and exploitation. It is impossible (and silly) to generalise about entire empires covering many lands over the expanse of time.
Bismarck is offline  
Old March 21st, 2012, 09:23 PM   #9

WeisSaul's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: New Amsterdam
Posts: 2,405

The French were not the Belgians. The French were not the nicest of people, but they weren't as bad as the Belgians were in the Congo.

The worst colonial power, I'm guessing, would have to have been either the Germans or the Belgians. The Germans committed a massive genocide in south-west Africa.

The French were hypocrites though. They proclaimed themselves as the nation of brotherhood, equality, liberty, and democracy, and denied those rights to their colonies. Though they eventually gave citizenship to their colonized peoples, it was more or less a sham. In Algeria, the Muslims had the same amount of representation as Christians, even though they massively outnumbered the Christians, and Algeria was part of Metropolitan France! Perhaps if the French were a little nicer to their colonized peoples, endowed their citizens with equal rights and voting opportunities, and allowed increased migration within the empire, they could have kept territories like Algeria, Mauritania, Mali, and Niger as contiguous French Republic, and actually had a reason to be so smug about themselves. Instead they were racist hypocrites and oppressors, and got their comeuppance.

In comparison, I'd say the British were the best of the imperial powers. They were pretty hands off when it came to governance, and aside from a few taxes, basic laws, and governing and judicial bodies, they left people to themselves. The British set up infrastructure and provided rule of law, and spread British civilization, values, technology, and philosophy across the world. The British could have easily forced their continued presence on many of their smaller possessions (Zanzibar, Belize, Bahrain, Singapore, etc) but allowed them independence instead. In sharp contrast, the French fought bloody wars to keep their empire, and later propped up French-backed dictators.

In short: British (1) French (2) Belgians (3) Germans (4)
--------------
Anyways, what was Italian colonialism like? Libya under Italo Balbo was supposedly THE place for Italians to move to, eventually causing Italians to stop going to America preferring Libya. Eritrea was also supposed to be pretty good, and Mogadishu was "The Pearl of the Indian Ocean". The Italians were crappy towards the Ethiopians though, those poor bastards, though that was much less a colonial acquisition than an occupation.
WeisSaul is offline  
Old March 21st, 2012, 09:34 PM   #10
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by WeisSaul View Post
In short: British (1) French (2) Belgians (3) Germans (4)
--------------
Nice British (or British-derived) ranking.

You won't believe it, but authors from other colonial master nationalities beg to differ.

Not that such natural bias would be particularly relevant...

At the end of the day, the more you learn about colonialism, the more evident it becomes how similar were the clones to each other, as anyone could easily verify on his / her own.
sylla1 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 02:16 PM
What would it have been like had India been ruled by any other colonial power? St. Anselm Speculative History 25 March 23rd, 2012 10:52 AM
Which European nation has the most power. rory1497 European History 85 May 7th, 2011 08:45 PM
Why are Chinese Dynasties treated differently from European ones? Kiwi Asian History 31 November 2nd, 2010 09:19 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.