Imperialism and Colonialism

[Das Longbowman]

[quote author=Wikipedia]Imperialism is an action where a country (usually an empire or kingdom) extends its power by acquisition of territories. It may also include the exploitation of those territories which is similar to colonialism which is generally regarded as an expression of imperialism.[/quote]
[quote author=Wikipedia]Colonialism is the establishment of a colony in one territory by a political power from another territory, and the subsequent maintenance, expansion, and exploitation of that colony. The term is also used to describe a set of unequal relationships between the colonial power and the colony and often between the colonists and the indigenous peoples.[/quote]
As a citizen of a former European colony, I have a lot of relatives that have lived through the colonial era. My great grandfather, for instance, was a worker in one of the many rubber fields in Java. And you can find that pretty much every citizen here above 80 years old (not that there's a lot of them) have lived through or atleast witnessed the colonial age.

Now about colonialism in general, I think that for many cases, it is wrong, because the people that lived under colonial rule was almost always oppressed and massively exploited. In many places, the workers (or slaves, probably) were given very harsh consequences if they did not meet their daily quota or was not able to finish their particular task. Here is a picture that I found very disturbing:

Spoiler: Father stares at the hand and foot of his five-year-old, severed as a punishment for failing to make the daily rubber quota, Belgian Congo, 1904

But on the other hand, it was the true birthplace of nationalism, if it wasn't for those Dutch VOC traders who decided to trade with us at the 17th century, and eventually colonized us, there wouldn't be an Indonesia or Indonesians, which is the nationality that I identify myself as, instead there would just be local warlords and kingdoms who would constantly fight each other and so on and so forth, we wouldn't be seeing ourselves as Indonesians-which in term means nationalism, we would instead recognize ourselves as Javanese, or Sundanese, or Balinese. And it goes for pretty much every other nation that has went through colonialism, India for instance, India existed because the British colonialized them, because the very feeling of living under constant oppression and exploitation gave birth to some sort of empathy between the people that lived under these conditions in the same geopolitical area, which in term gave birth to nationalism, the desire of freedom, which led to the independence of many nations.

I am also interested in you guys' opinions about this subject. Especially because a lot of you live in European countries that essentially started colonialism, do you regret it happening in history? Or do you think that it was necessary? Please share your views.

 

[fish123]

get ready for poles claiming higher moral standing than all other Europeans because they never colonized anyone

 

[Temuzu]

Spoiler: Related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0C4_88ub_M

It's all so bothersome.

Especially because a lot of you lived in European countries that essentially started colonialism

Finland was practically a Swedish colony for hundreds of years, used as a territory to get men, gather taxes, obtain resources and fight battles on. Hell, Finns were the go-to slaves for the Russians for centuries, during the Great Northern War for instance 20 000-30 000 Finns were taken as slaves, which would be about 4.7% - 7.1% of the population back then.

So yeah, white guilt doesn't really happen in the glorious Khanate.

 

[Das Longbowman]

First of all, I don't think a single nation with a language that doesn't even have Latin influence (which is the root of most European languages) can represent the entirety of Europe. And I guess when I say "European countries that essentially started colonialism" I meant ones such as Great Britain, or France, or Portugal, or Spain, or Italy, or Germany, and a few others that if you count is numerically superior to that of the above (Finland=1, Britain+France+Portugal+Spain+Italy+Germany=6, 1 < 6, mind blown.). So I guess my statement was correct.

 

[Temuzu]

I could just grab a number of Balkan states and make that statement of yours incorrect you know.

Besides, I'm not representing Europe, or really anyone or anything for that matter. And do you think that language has any relevance here?

 

[mdk31]

First of all, I don't think a single nation with a language that doesn't even have Latin influence (which is the root of most European languages) can represent the entirety of Europe.

Latin isn't the root of most European languages. Latin is the root of about 7 languages. Germanic languages alone outnumber Latin languages; there are about 12 Germanic languages in Europe. And then Slavic languages, another 10-12 or so.

 

[Das Longbowman]

Sorry. I guess I kinda meant the Romance languages (Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, French, etc. Italian and French have contributed many words to the English language) which is the languages of the main colonial powers in Europe, I suppose.

 

[Temuzu]

I still don't see how a language is related to colonialism in any way.

 

[Das Longbowman]

Yeah I guess. Let's just carry on.
You're Finnish right? Can you explain to me the relation between the Finnish people and the Suomi, are they related in any way?

 

[Temuzu]

I suppose you mean the Saami, since Finland is the same thing as Suomi.

I'm not sure, I think the Saami are in some way related, but not very closely. They go into the same group as people like the Mari in Russia IIRC. But basically, Finns and Saami, are two different ethnicities.

 

[Das Longbowman]

Yes, that's what I meant. Thank you.
^{why do i always make myself look like an idiot}

 

[Swissky]

Finland was practically a Swedish colony for hundreds of years, used as a territory to get men, gather taxes, obtain resources and fight battles on. Hell, Finns were the go-to slaves for the Russians for centuries, during the Great Northern War for instance 20 000-30 000 Finns were taken as slaves, which would be about 4.7% - 7.1% of the population back then.

So yeah, white guilt doesn't really happen in the glorious Khanate.

Axel Oxenstierna, Rikskansler (Chancellor) of Sweden in the 1600's: "I don't need a colony, I've got Norrland."

Can't white guilt trip the jarldom, yo.

snip

I feel a bit lost as where to start. Colonialism and infrastructure is pretty interesting, one wonders if modern post-colonial cities were drawn after the roads that lead to the most valuable sources of raw material. I've yet to witness colonialism that highly rewarded both parties in some sort of utilitariastic manner, those who know about Belgian Congo knows that it was King Leopold's personal land. That would most likely be the worst type of colonialism,  where the general populus of both sides gain nothing,  directly or indirectly.

 

[Vieira151]

Well, I'm half Scottish and half Portuguese. I guess you could say I have an ancestry with mixed experiences of Imperialism.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

I've yet to witness colonialism that highly rewarded both parties in some sort of utilitariastic manner,

Even in somewhere like Great Britain where the British empire was designed to serve the people of Britain by exploiting foreign resources, it wasn't as if the British Empire just handed out gold and ivory to people. If anything it made life a lot worse for just about everyone in the country. Colonialism opened up a gigantic world market designed to double-shaft the colonials by selling them their own goods back, and turned most of Britain from a relatively free farming society into an industrial powerhouse where former farmers were crammed into cities in horrible conditions.

I'm not sure if it was solely the fault of colonialism or if industrialisation played a big role, but without such a large urbanised population at home I doubt the British would have had the power base to support a transcontinental empire.

 

[Das Longbowman]

snip

I feel a bit lost as where to start. Colonialism and infrastructure is pretty interesting, one wonders if modern post-colonial cities were drawn after the roads that lead to the most valuable sources of raw material. I've yet to witness colonialism that highly rewarded both parties in some sort of utilitariastic manner

Well I know that the neighbours on the other side (read: Malaysia) has the best welfare in the region, and their GDP per capita is >$10.000, well ahead of ours and pretty much everybody in SE Asia, which basically means that they're a second world country rn. Now I don't know if that qualifies as this:

colonialism that highly rewarded both parties in some sort of utilitariastic manner

, but during the colonial era Malaysia (and Singapore) wasn't a colony that was used as a commodity exporter (like Indonesia or Brazil, etc.), it was more like an administrative region the Brits used to strengthen their monopoly on the Singapore trade region, or atleast that's what I learnt from history books.

those who know about Belgian Congo knows that it was King Leopold's personal land. That would most likely be the worst type of colonialism,  where the general populus of both sides gain nothing,  directly or indirectly.

Definitely, Belgian Congo was basically Leopold's playground to test human experiments and ****, here's some more pics if you're interested:

Spoiler

Spoiler

You can relate these ones below to the one in the OP:

Spoiler

Spoiler

****ed up ****.

Well, I'm half Scottish and half Portuguese. I guess you could say I have an ancestry with mixed experiences of Imperialism.

Now that's an interesting combo.

Hey jacob replied.

 

[Swissky]

I was referring to that there might be some socioeconomic sentiment that is hindering progress. 

Even in somewhere like Great Britain where the British empire was designed to serve the people of Britain by exploiting foreign resources, it wasn't as if the British Empire just handed out gold and ivory to people. If anything it made life a lot worse for just about everyone in the country.

Surely the growing middle class of the Victorian era had some possibilites of profit?

, but during the colonial era Malaysia (and Singapore) wasn't a colony that was used as a commodity exporter (like Indonesia or Brazil, etc.), it was more like an administrative region the Brits used to strengthen their monopoly on the Singapore trade region, or atleast that's what I learnt from history books.

Like the current overseas territories of the French?

 

[Dystopian]

I laughed when I saw Great Britain France and Spain started Imperialism and Colonialism.

Gaul was the late Roman Republic's Africa, The Mediterranean coastline and the Balkans were the Muslims white slave economy (not to mention their horrible enslavement of actual Africans as well) during the Middle Ages. In history strong nations, strong meaning strong militarily, tend to dominate weaker peoples and powers in every way possible.

 

[Das Longbowman]

I laughed when I saw Great Britain France and Spain started Imperialism and Colonialism.

In the modern age?

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

I laughed when I saw Great Britain France and Spain started Imperialism and Colonialism.

Gaul was the late Roman Republic's Africa, The Mediterranean coastline and the Balkans were the Muslims white slave economy (not to mention their horrible enslavement of actual Africans as well) during the Middle Ages. In history strong nations, strong meaning strong militarily, tend to dominate weaker peoples and powers in every way possible.

Imperialism before and during the feudal age can't be compared to Industrial-era colonialism. Rome and the Ottomans conquered their neighbours as political equals and eventually subjugated them as equals, allowing them to become citizens and whatnot. Industrial-era colonialism on the other hand was purely exploitative and no attempt was made to incorporate the colonies and natives as equals to the core territory (proximity may have been a big factor).

For example in the Ottoman Empire absolutely nobody was free, not even the sultan, and for much of Ottoman history most of the administration and military were slaves or minorities like Christians and Jews, so slaves fit into the central power system. Ottoman slaves could wield huge amounts of real power under the right circumstances and they weren't just workhorses for the exploitation of resources like slaves in the Atlantic trade were. When the Ottomans conquered the Balkans and most of Anatolia they didn't just set up mines and plantations and leave some soldiers there like Britain and France did in Africa and the Americas, they incorporated it into their empire and allowed for some degree of self-governance.

This is more indicative of the means of the age, i.e. the Ottomans and Romans and all those between would have been technologically unable to impose the sort of exploitative control that France and Britain and others did in the 1800s, but my point still stands that they are completely different phenomena.

 

[Almalexia]

I suppose a point or distinction should be made though, that while colonialism requires Imperialism, Imperialism doesn't necessarily imply colonialism. They're often lumped together as a result of the past three centuries or so, or worse conflated and used interchangeably, when it is largely inaccurate for viewing empires from before the modern era.