-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Well, that's because the natives all died before we could civilise them. Unfortunate, but if they're gonna resist, then it's needed.
This is the crux of the matter. The "natives" were not resisting their betterment, they were resisting their exploitation, murder, and oppression.
Other posters have covered the problem with the idea of Canada, Australia and New Zealand as examples to point to, but let me extend on it.
The First Peoples of Canada, much like the Native Tribes of the States, did not fare well. Aborigines in Australia did not fare well. the Maori of New Zealand did not fare well.
In all these countries, if you look, you see the scars that imperialism left on these people: poverty, rampant alcoholism, and, of course, only a remnant of the population they had before their "betterment." Before European "betterment" all of the civilizations functioned as stable, healthy societies. During the process of British expansion strategies were *deliberately* used so as to divide these people amongst themselves, make them substance dependent, and shunt them off to the parts of the country that were not valuable. During and afterwards, they faced institutionalized racism (in many cases this continues) which hurt their ability to better their people.
"Betterment" was what the US, the British and the other Europeans *told themselves* they were doing to justify their actions to themselves. And of course, this is a scenario vastly more likely than the one you posit. Human beings are not, as a rule, a bunch of selfless, generous charity workers who would go out of their way to "better" others, to see how this is the case, see how most people do not know or do not care about problems that are not of immediate concern. Whereas the fundamental model of exploitation, divide & conquer, etc, is at least as old as the Romans.
But the fact remains, let the savages run the country themselves, without educating them properly, everything goes to the dogs. Therefore, maintaining colonial rule, whilst curbing the more excessive elements of repression, is the way forward.
aaand, we got racism! *applauds*
United Kingdom was more developed than Sweden in the 19th century, Sweden should have been a colony to UK. Hack, the whole world should have been a colony to UK, that would been great!
Sarcasm aside, colonialism is a system based on violence, or the threat of violence. Excessive elements of repression is needed to sustain a colonial rule, as the colonial subjects will always strive to break free. A spiral of violence is definite. Further, the colonial system only teach violence, as been described by posters before me.
Racism? I really don't see how that comes into it?
Well, if they want to break free, then violence may have to be used against them. If it's Ghandi like peaceful protest, then fine, they should be rewarded for using civilised means. If they start the shooting, then it's perfectly acceptable to use violence back.
As for having the whole world a colony, that's just ridiculous and not at all contributing to the discussion.
Well, if they want to break free, then violence may have to be used against them. If it's Ghandi like peaceful protest, then fine, they should be rewarded for using civilised means. If they start the shooting, then it's perfectly acceptable to use violence back.
As for having the whole world a colony, that's just ridiculous and not at all contributing to the discussion.
@DoomBunny
I think there are much better ways to improve the lives of people who are behind you in technology (or people who lack some of your technology) than wage war against them, conquering them, taxing them and taking their lands for immigrants from the conqueror's country. And for the record I don't think it is good for people to be conquered, and have their lands taken away.
First, one should not force change upon people. Now, one can offer them f.e. medicine or offer to teach them what you know about medicine. You can offer them knowledge that they were unawere of, and who knows, maybe the natives can offer knowledge in return. The knowledge that they were given may improve their lives and therefor is no need for one to conquer them.
Is it not strange to condemn people for using violence when one is defending another group of people for using violence ?
I think there are much better ways to improve the lives of people who are behind you in technology (or people who lack some of your technology) than wage war against them, conquering them, taxing them and taking their lands for immigrants from the conqueror's country. And for the record I don't think it is good for people to be conquered, and have their lands taken away.
First, one should not force change upon people. Now, one can offer them f.e. medicine or offer to teach them what you know about medicine. You can offer them knowledge that they were unawere of, and who knows, maybe the natives can offer knowledge in return. The knowledge that they were given may improve their lives and therefor is no need for one to conquer them.
Is it not strange to condemn people for using violence when one is defending another group of people for using violence ?
racism -> "savages" as a description of colonial subjects
violence -> the colonial system is a system of violence, both during the initial invasion, but also as a part of the colonial administration
the "whole world a colony" was tinted but sarcasm, but if your stand point is that the leading states/nations of the world should teach the lesser states how to be civilized through a violent invasion and then a autocratic violent exploitation of the country the logical outcome is that the whole world should've been a colony the UK during the 19th century, as UK was the greatest state during that century. Or maybe this rule only shall be applied to the "savages"
Ehm, you seem to misunderstand. I'm not advocating the use of violence, it is far from my preferred method. Best case scenario, the savages (I really don't see the racism here) cooperate, learn and then get to have a better future. Violence is used only in the worst case scenario, when they resist with armed force, something that, whilst I can understand them doing, is both ill advised and generally disruptive to their betterment.
As for not forcing change upon people, that's nice in an ideal world, but then you realise that most people don't have the capability to choose the path that is best for them.
As for not forcing change upon people, that's nice in an ideal world, but then you realise that most people don't have the capability to choose the path that is best for them.
This is tricky because one decision that may better one people will probably negatively affect a different people. If you mean the best possible history by sheer number of people's lives better, probably some change in China, Africa or World War One. Maybe no rise of communism in China would effect the largest number of people positively.
Code:
savage (comparative more savage, superlative most savage)
wild; not cultivated
barbaric; not civilized
fierce and ferocious
brutal, vicious or mercilessFurther, colonial rule requires violence to create and uphold, or in some cases threat of violence. It is good that you don't support violence as the general course of action but I have to wonder why you support colonial rule so much then.
Well, because I want to better the savages, and also because I like the idea of having an Empire, full of mysterious places that have strange wonders such as Kangaroos and stuff. I still really don't see how the term is racist, as I'm not in any way whatsoever using it as a blanket term to refer to all Afrikans, or indeed, using it solely to describe Afrikans.
But people seem to adopt ways that are useful to them. For example, many native American tribes in the great plains quickly adopted riding after horses escaped from Europeans and that helped these tribes in a great way. I think people will f.e. generally accept medicine that will save their loved ones or them selves, even though some may be suspicious and refuse. And if one has to force people to take up his ways, then maybe his ways are in general not so good.
Yah, I'd be inclined to follow that line of thought if my few short years on this earth hadn't proven to me that many people need to be actively turned away from making stupid decisions.
But who is to decide what is a what is stupid and what is smart, what is good and what is bad ?
I think colonialism was made life worse for the native people, yes they often received technology they did not have, but many of them were driven of their lands, saw their children taken away, worked very hard for very little, were killed and so on.
I think I understand your question very well. You asked, what kind of decisions could have been made in the past, so that over the course of history from that point onward the world would have evolved in a better way, where "evolve in a better way" means something along the lines of "less starvation", "less fatalities from conflict", "higher living standards" or "more people adopting this or that first language and culture".
What I am saying is, that while individual decisions may avoid certain events (like not pressing the doomsday button), in the long run (over 100+ years) it does not matter. Even if they annihilated 90% of the human race in 1962, by 2062 things would be back to normal, and the terrible suffering that people went through in the 20-30 years following the doomsday war would make us a better people. The world of 2062 might be a much better place because war might have been outlawed entirely for a few generations, and the worldwide reconstruction effort might have created deep and lasting bonds of compassion between the world's peoples. Conversely, if you look at the world we live in, you see we did not outlaw war at all. But there are billions more humans than there would be if 1962 had been the year of massive thermonuclear war. We obviously live better lives than we would be, had someone in 1962 pressed the doomsday button. Which one is better?
I believe it evens out, since on one hand humans can learn amazing things from suffering. Compassion, humility, respecting the things that nurture you. On the other hand when people live in too much peace and suffer no hunger, they forget compassion, they grow arrogant and they believe they are gods. They take things for granted. Which eventually leads to suffering.