Should Europeans offer their apologies for their colonization?

Should the European apologize for their colonization?

  • Yes

    Votes: 29 11.5%
  • No

    Votes: 147 58.3%
  • No, but educate the European children more about this subject

    Votes: 76 30.2%

  • Total voters
    252
  • This poll will close: .

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,653
Spain
(my holding)

Forgive me, I must respond: the US does not need Middle Eastern oil. We pump our own and are the largest oil-producing country in the world. We do import some oil from Mexico, Canada and Venezuela.
Venezuelan red clowns are so incoherent...
 

Ancientgeezer

Ad Honorem
Nov 2011
8,898
The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
Wow. Suspended? I don’t generally look at the dates of discussion forums. I look at the discussion itself and if a post is interesting to me, I will respond. I have asked this question before and never received an answer: if the discussion forum is “too old”, why is it still shown or listed? I had no intention of posting on “outdated”. discussions; I’m here to enjoy the discussions. That’s all.
This is the last time I'm going to warn you about replying to posts from years ago. That user is no longer here to respond to you or defend his points.

The next time, you will be suspended.
That seems a bit severe, surely closing old threads would be more appropriate.
 
Aug 2018
337
America
"Non-Europeans never demand that other conquerors should offer their apologies!"

1) Not completely true. If this were the case, no Hindu fascist sectarianism in India would exist, the same fascist sectarians who demand that Muslims apologise for the conquests of India or parts of it, even pay reparations. They have elected Hindu fascist Narendra Modi twice in a row already. The Chinese and Koreans also demand Japan its apologies for Japanese colonialism against them. Pretty sure Han chauvinists in China have said that Mongols should pay reparations by getting completely annexed by the Chinese. Hong Kongers are also accusing China of "colonialism". In Taiwan, the indigenous non-Chinese Taiwanese also demand reparations from China, not from Europe. In the Middle East, Arab Christians are far more likely to see Europeans as liberators than as colonial invaders and ravagers. This view even contributed to the Lebanese Civil War. The same view exists among many Arab Jews in regard to European Jews In israel.

2) No other people conquered nearly as much as Europeans. They're the master conquerors. Rounding up all European colonial powers, they conquered and colonised 90% of the world's landmass, and the 10% that wasn't directly colonised like Japan, China, Turkey and Iran was still subjected to a subordinate status and ravaged by European wars in their soil. European colonialism is markedly different from previous conquests. Moreover, European colonialists are the greatest mass murderers as well. Shashi Tharoor estimates that the British killed 50 million people in India in the 19th century alone, while Noam Chomsky said that India lost 100 million people during the 20th century, about half of it during the period that India was still under British colonial rule. Of course, the Native American genocide is another example. Confer also to the Belgian colonisation of Congo, and similar death tolls should have occurred elsewhere such as in Nigeria and South Africa.

"Asiatics should offer their apologies! Look at the Persians, the Huns, the Arabs, the Mongols or the Turks! European colonialism against them was simply a justified defensive war!"

This view is hogwash because not even all Asiatics invaded Europe, and Asiatics only ravaged or conquered parts of Europe, mainly southern and eastern Europe. The English, for example, were never invaded by a single Asiatic army. Indians and Chinese never invaded Europe except as part of Persian and Mongol armies after they had been subjugated by these foreigners. Northern Asians obviously never invaded Europe either. More to the point, the rest of the world outside of Asia did not attack Europe as well. Africans, Oceanians and Americans never once invaded Europe, so this excuse doesn't even work with a vast portion of the world's population. And of course, you don't justify genocide just because genocide was perpetrated against you. You are justified in defending yourself and kicking back attackers but that's it. At best, you can come and render useless the means of invasion of your attacker by taking the fight against them, but you stop at that. You don't conquer the lands of the people they rule and much less kill or subjugate them en masse. To put an example, it's okay for the French to have defeated the Muslim invasion from Spain at Tours. It wasn't okay, however, for France to conquer and colonise Muslim territories just because over 1,000 years earlier Muslims made attempts against French territory. Imagine if you told a Muslim Malian who lost his family to the French that "the French did this because over a thousand years ago Muslims attempted to conquer France". What do Malians from the modern era have to do with Spanish Arabs of the early Middle Ages? See the idiocy and outright evil immorality in this?

Others try to justify certain European conquests because of their immediate danger. For instance, I've seen people justify the French conquest and colonisation of Algeria because of Algerian slave raiders, as if the French could only defeat said slavers by conquering and colonising millions of Algerians who had nothing to do and were not at fault for these bands of pirates. Of course, like I said, this excuse doesn't work for the vast majority of territories conquered and colonised by European colonisers (or what, are you now going to say that Aboriginal Australians were also pirating the coast of Europe?), but even in the case of Algeria, the French only needed to work in combination with the Algerian while also strengthening its own coastal borders. Using Algerian slave piracy to justify the wholesale brutal conquest of an entire country is a violation of every basic morality.

"This is nothing but collective punishment for something that happened a long time ago!"

Disregarding that most of the world did not become independent until the last half a century, hardly a "long time ago", no one is doing collective punishment for Europeans either, especially if you're only asking for apologies and not reparations. Apologies come from the states, which are not understood by the non-Europeans to be the whole population of a country. No one is saying the average Dutch is to blame for the millions of deaths from Suriname and South Africa to Papua and New Zealand by Dutch colonial ravage. Only the state of Holland has responsibility. This is as dumb as saying that all Cambodians are to blame for the Cambodian genocide instead of just the Khmer Communists under Pol Pot. And as for reparations, about the only thing that can be said is that this could extract a toll on the average European if bad taxation and use of budgets is applied or if the reparations are too expensive. But with good welfare policies, the average European wouldn't even know that his or her taxes are going for the reparation of damages to ex-colonies. And again, no one is saying that the average European of today is to blame for what European colonialists in the past did.

Also, notice the double standard. No one says that it was wrong for the Germans to pay reparations for the damages to other European countries in WWI and WWII. If Japan were to be extracted reparations by China, I bet a lot of Europeans would be okay with that. In fact, I'm pretty sure that if Communists could somehow pay for reparations for what they supposedly did, a lot of the same people that otherwise complain about reparations towards colonialism would be celebrating. They also never pay attention to the logistics and plausibility of the non-European cases of reparation I mention. They only start mentioning those things when it comes to European colonialism.
 
Oct 2011
468
Croatia
"Non-Europeans never demand that other conquerors should offer their apologies!"

1) Not completely true. If this were the case, no Hindu fascist sectarianism in India would exist, the same fascist sectarians who demand that Muslims apologise for the conquests of India or parts of it, even pay reparations. They have elected Hindu fascist Narendra Modi twice in a row already. The Chinese and Koreans also demand Japan its apologies for Japanese colonialism against them. Pretty sure Han chauvinists in China have said that Mongols should pay reparations by getting completely annexed by the Chinese. Hong Kongers are also accusing China of "colonialism". In Taiwan, the indigenous non-Chinese Taiwanese also demand reparations from China, not from Europe. In the Middle East, Arab Christians are far more likely to see Europeans as liberators than as colonial invaders and ravagers. This view even contributed to the Lebanese Civil War. The same view exists among many Arab Jews in regard to European Jews In israel.

2) No other people conquered nearly as much as Europeans. They're the master conquerors. Rounding up all European colonial powers, they conquered and colonised 90% of the world's landmass, and the 10% that wasn't directly colonised like Japan, China, Turkey and Iran was still subjected to a subordinate status and ravaged by European wars in their soil. European colonialism is markedly different from previous conquests. Moreover, European colonialists are the greatest mass murderers as well. Shashi Tharoor estimates that the British killed 50 million people in India in the 19th century alone, while Noam Chomsky said that India lost 100 million people during the 20th century, about half of it during the period that India was still under British colonial rule. Of course, the Native American genocide is another example. Confer also to the Belgian colonisation of Congo, and similar death tolls should have occurred elsewhere such as in Nigeria and South Africa.

"Asiatics should offer their apologies! Look at the Persians, the Huns, the Arabs, the Mongols or the Turks! European colonialism against them was simply a justified defensive war!"

This view is hogwash because not even all Asiatics invaded Europe, and Asiatics only ravaged or conquered parts of Europe, mainly southern and eastern Europe. The English, for example, were never invaded by a single Asiatic army. Indians and Chinese never invaded Europe except as part of Persian and Mongol armies after they had been subjugated by these foreigners. Northern Asians obviously never invaded Europe either. More to the point, the rest of the world outside of Asia did not attack Europe as well. Africans, Oceanians and Americans never once invaded Europe, so this excuse doesn't even work with a vast portion of the world's population. And of course, you don't justify genocide just because genocide was perpetrated against you. You are justified in defending yourself and kicking back attackers but that's it. At best, you can come and render useless the means of invasion of your attacker by taking the fight against them, but you stop at that. You don't conquer the lands of the people they rule and much less kill or subjugate them en masse. To put an example, it's okay for the French to have defeated the Muslim invasion from Spain at Tours. It wasn't okay, however, for France to conquer and colonise Muslim territories just because over 1,000 years earlier Muslims made attempts against French territory. Imagine if you told a Muslim Malian who lost his family to the French that "the French did this because over a thousand years ago Muslims attempted to conquer France". What do Malians from the modern era have to do with Spanish Arabs of the early Middle Ages? See the idiocy and outright evil immorality in this?

Others try to justify certain European conquests because of their immediate danger. For instance, I've seen people justify the French conquest and colonisation of Algeria because of Algerian slave raiders, as if the French could only defeat said slavers by conquering and colonising millions of Algerians who had nothing to do and were not at fault for these bands of pirates. Of course, like I said, this excuse doesn't work for the vast majority of territories conquered and colonised by European colonisers (or what, are you now going to say that Aboriginal Australians were also pirating the coast of Europe?), but even in the case of Algeria, the French only needed to work in combination with the Algerian while also strengthening its own coastal borders. Using Algerian slave piracy to justify the wholesale brutal conquest of an entire country is a violation of every basic morality.

"This is nothing but collective punishment for something that happened a long time ago!"

Disregarding that most of the world did not become independent until the last half a century, hardly a "long time ago", no one is doing collective punishment for Europeans either, especially if you're only asking for apologies and not reparations. Apologies come from the states, which are not understood by the non-Europeans to be the whole population of a country. No one is saying the average Dutch is to blame for the millions of deaths from Suriname and South Africa to Papua and New Zealand by Dutch colonial ravage. Only the state of Holland has responsibility. This is as dumb as saying that all Cambodians are to blame for the Cambodian genocide instead of just the Khmer Communists under Pol Pot. And as for reparations, about the only thing that can be said is that this could extract a toll on the average European if bad taxation and use of budgets is applied or if the reparations are too expensive. But with good welfare policies, the average European wouldn't even know that his or her taxes are going for the reparation of damages to ex-colonies. And again, no one is saying that the average European of today is to blame for what European colonialists in the past did.

Also, notice the double standard. No one says that it was wrong for the Germans to pay reparations for the damages to other European countries in WWI and WWII. If Japan were to be extracted reparations by China, I bet a lot of Europeans would be okay with that. In fact, I'm pretty sure that if Communists could somehow pay for reparations for what they supposedly did, a lot of the same people that otherwise complain about reparations towards colonialism would be celebrating. They also never pay attention to the logistics and plausibility of the non-European cases of reparation I mention. They only start mentioning those things when it comes to European colonialism.
1) Don't throw "fascist" label around that easily, it makes you look immature. And if we are going to go around apologizing for the sins of our ancestors, why wouldn't Muslims apologize for their conquests (and I'm not talking just about India here)?

2) Yes, and India also lost similar number of people due to Muslim conquests. Between 1000 AD and 1500 AD, Hindu population fell from 600 million to 200 million. That is demographic loss of 400 million people - even more, when you account for the fact that under normal conditions, populations would have been growing. European colonialism was geographically most widespread, that much is true.

3) Those "bands of pirates" were, in fact, supported by Algerian authorities. Because of that, politically defeating and occupying Algeria was possibly the only way to put an end to piracy.

That being said, what should be done is not just an apology - that is a load of hot air anyway. What should be done is reworking of international system into multilateral one, and an end to globalism - especially certain aspects of it, such as multinational and other large companies exploiting Third World countries for resources, which latter could use for their own development.
 
  • Like
Reactions: martin76

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,178
Lisbon, Portugal
1) Don't throw "fascist" label around that easily, it makes you look immature. And if we are going to go around apologizing for the sins of our ancestors, why wouldn't Muslims apologize for their conquests (and I'm not talking just about India here)?

2) Yes, and India also lost similar number of people due to Muslim conquests. Between 1000 AD and 1500 AD, Hindu population fell from 600 million to 200 million. That is demographic loss of 400 million people - even more, when you account for the fact that under normal conditions, populations would have been growing. European colonialism was geographically most widespread, that much is true.

3) Those "bands of pirates" were, in fact, supported by Algerian authorities. Because of that, politically defeating and occupying Algeria was possibly the only way to put an end to piracy.

That being said, what should be done is not just an apology - that is a load of hot air anyway. What should be done is reworking of international system into multilateral one, and an end to globalism - especially certain aspects of it, such as multinational and other large companies exploiting Third World countries for resources, which latter could use for their own development.
Why you guys always have to resort to "whattaboutism" when this topic is raised?
 
Oct 2011
468
Croatia
Why you guys always have to resort to "whattaboutism" when this topic is raised?
Because I have impression that European colonialism is oftentimes treated as something exceptionally evil, when in fact the only thing unique about it was European advantage in maritime transportation technology.
 

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,178
Lisbon, Portugal
Because I have impression that European colonialism is oftentimes treated as something exceptionally evil, when in fact the only thing unique about it was European advantage in maritime transportation technology.
No it's not, you are totally wrong on that regard. You live in a western country, so it simply makes sense that according to you, European colonialism seems to oftentimes treated something exceptionally evil.

Because of your environment and background you witness more criticism directed to European colonial powers, but if you were a South Korean or Chinese living in East Asia you would have listen more about the exceptionally evil Japanese Empire, not European one. I live in China, and I know about this very well.

Since Historum is mostly composed of westerners and some non-westerners - especially Indians and southeast Asians who their latest colonial masters were from European countries - so it makes sense you guys focus more on late European colonialism.

Since I said that, can you guys stop resorting to "whattaboutism" and present other arguments to support your views? Or is it your argument solely based on that argumentative fallacy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tulius
Oct 2011
468
Croatia
Since I said that, can you guys stop resorting to "whattaboutism" and present other arguments to support your views? Or is it your argument solely based on that argumentative fallacy?
Read the last paragraph of my original post. There is really nothing to add that I didn't include there.
 

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,178
Lisbon, Portugal
Read the last paragraph of my original post. There is really nothing to add that I didn't include there.
Read it already, thanks.
One note: Why you use the term "globalism" and not "globalization"?
 
Aug 2018
337
America
1) Don't throw "fascist" label around that easily, it makes you look immature. And if we are going to go around apologizing for the sins of our ancestors, why wouldn't Muslims apologize for their conquests (and I'm not talking just about India here)?
Did you even read what I said? I explicitly said that not all Europeans should apologise. Learn to read. Stop saying "we" or "our":

"Apologies come from the states, which are not understood by the non-Europeans to be the whole population of a country. No one is saying the average Dutch is to blame for the millions of deaths from Suriname and South Africa to Papua and New Zealand by Dutch colonial ravage. Only the state of Holland has responsibility. This is as dumb as saying that all Cambodians are to blame for the Cambodian genocide instead of just the Khmer Communists under Pol Pot."

Also, what do you want me to call far-right Hindu sectarianism, an ultra-conservative, militaristic and dictatorial ideology then if not fascist?

2) Yes, and India also lost similar number of people due to Muslim conquests. Between 1000 AD and 1500 AD, Hindu population fell from 600 million to 200 million. That is demographic loss of 400 million people - even more, when you account for the fact that under normal conditions, populations would have been growing. European colonialism was geographically most widespread, that much is true.
I really don't buy this seeing how Hinduism is the third largest religion and has numbers rivalling the worldwide population of Muslims. They certainly outnumber Muslims in the Indian subcontinent alone by as much as half a billion. What I think is that you're taking the numbers of conversion, not mass murder, to Hinduism in Afghanistan, Pakistan and northern India alone that used to have large numbers of Hindus that gradually lost ground to Islam as the Muslims advanced.

And again, read above. No one is asking Europeans as a whole to apologise or holding them responsible as a whole, so it's ridiculous to hold Muslims with collective blame and guilt. Now, you could still say that the likes of Turkey or Saudi Arabia should apologise, but this is also ridiculous since none of the Muslim states that conquered in the past exist (virtually all modern-day Muslim states are post-colonial states either created and left by European colonisers or created artificial nation-states through anti-colonial liberation struggles) unless one wants to say Turkey is the legitimate successor of the Ottoman Empire. Certainly none of the Muslim states that conquered India in whole or in part, like the Umayyads, survived to this day, not to mention that the conquest of India involved few Muslim states, most actually involving individual Muslim warlords who carved and created their own states independent of existing Muslim polities that, again, no longer exist.

3) Those "bands of pirates" were, in fact, supported by Algerian authorities. Because of that, politically defeating and occupying Algeria was possibly the only way to put an end to piracy.
This is hogwash. This is like saying the Anglo-Saxons should have invaded, conquered and subjugated Scandinavia and its population because Scandinavian kings supported the Vikings. In any case, that is only for the Algerian case. You're not going to say that Aboriginal Australians or Native Americans were raiding the coast of England, now, do you?

I do agree with your last sentence, however, except for the term "globalism" which I don't really know what it means. I prefer the term imperialism.