There's no euphemistic or metaphorical use on my part. Got that?

please forgive my ignorance in misperceiving you as a member of the 'those who sit on on the side from which the sun rises' lodge's powerful clan of 'bearers of the stick from which comes fire and death' society of the 'pale skinned men who defend their version of the old ones' beliefs' branch of the tribe of the mighty elephant currently headed by the war chief in the big white tipi on the potomac.

please forgive my ignorance in misperceiving you as a member of the 'those who sit on on the side from which the sun rises' lodge's powerful clan of 'bearers of the stick from which comes fire and death' society of the 'pale skinned men who defend their version of the old ones' beliefs' branch of the tribe of the mighty elephant currently headed by the war chief in the big white tipi on the potomac.

---kingbee

As a longtime member of that lodge, I say....

You're forgiven.

But let me add that life was further from a utopia before colonialism began. The Africans had been enslaving, sacrificing, eating and generally massacring each other long before Europeans arrived in Africa (and in greater numbers). The Zulus are said to have depopulated their and surrounding regions by over 50%. The Cherokee here in the US murdered an estimated 50,000 male men and boys during one raid alone on the tribes we call the mound dwellers of the Mississippi valley about 1500 years ago.

The Germans killed 6 million within the period of a decade. Stalin killed something like 20 million. America killed over 100,000 in two raids on two cities in 1945.

The Germans killed 6 million within the period of a decade. Stalin killed something like 20 million. America killed over 100,000 in two raids on two cities in 1945.

What does that have to do with colonialism? My point was to say that many people try to portray life before colonialism as one big happy place in order to make colonialism out to be the big bad wolf.

You also missed the fact that the area of what we call today as Germany was depopulated by 75% during the 100 years. But that has nothing to do with colonialism, just like your statement.

Also Germany and Stalin did most of the deaths to other own people, because they were not Democracies. The 100,000 (actually 237,062) Deaths you talk about in the Nuclear Bombing of Japan in 1945, prevented a much larger death count of not only US lives, but Japanese military and Civilian lives too. If you don't think that would have happened, just remember it is estimated that close to 40% of the civilian population on Okinawa did suicide attacks or committed suicide. Think of the death count for the invasion of the Japan’s main Islands.

That's My Two Cents

The Germans killed 6 million within the period of a decade. Stalin killed something like 20 million. America killed over 100,000 in two raids on two cities in 1945.

I, too, would like to know what this has to do with colonialism. Or is it just another attempt by a Leftie to lump the US in with two of history's greatest mass-murderers? Not even a nice try, and totally off the mark and completely out of line.
I still say that sometimes colonialism was the best alternative for some of the more "backward" peoples. I've seen nothing here that changes that view.
It gave some of them a certain stability regardless of the more negative aspects, of which there were many, of course.

I'd be curious to know whether the Lefties on here would still (or would they yet, rather) consider the USSR to have been an empire or a colonialist government.
They did, after all, "liberate" the nations of Eastern Europe from the Nazis only to establish a ring of friendly puppet goverments, which they directly controlled (best evidenced by Kruschev's remark "When I want to make the West scream, I squeeze its testicles....Berlin.") , between themselves and the Western nations.

in america you'll get food to eat
won't have to run through the jungle and scuff up your feet
you'll just sing about jesus and drink wine all day
it's great to be an american

ain't no lions or tigers ain't no mamba snake
just the sweet watermelon and the buckwheat cake
ev'rybody is as happy as a man can be
climb aboard little wog sail away with me

in america every man is free
to take care of his home and his family
you'll be as happy as a monkey in a monkey tree
yall gonna be an american

sail away sail away
we goin cross the mighty ocean into charleston bay
sail away-sail away
we gonna cross that mighty ocean into charleston bay
--randy newman 'sail away'

newman wrote that song while developing a movie about slavery in which africans were recruited by hucksters promising them a better life in america.

like most humor, it works because it enables us to laugh at something so horrific the other choice would be to cry. i doubt the slave trade woulda been socially acceptable solely for economic reasons (altho they were obviously the major motivation). those who captured, transported and enslaved africans were able to justify what they were doing by virtue of saving the poor heathens' souls and civilizing them. spain felt the same way bout its exploits in central and south america. i'm sure every colonial state has done the same thing to some extent.

the problem in sudan--and in every other current troublespot in the third world--is the direct consequence of imperialism's arrogant elitist apologetic (going back to prehistory and before). to suggest more of the same as a solution is equivalent to curing mercury poisoning by feeding the patient nothing but swordfish.

for those who claim to be stalwart advocates of any type of freedom--but most especially individual freedom--to consider such a thing (much less defend it) boggles the mind. if tomorrow a race of extraterrestials arrived and decided to 'assist' us, id hope yall would join me in the insurgency.

You are right that tribalism is often portrayed idealistically, when it was certainly not that. However the subsequent colonialism was also anything but idealistic, and it did cause many of the problems in those places. It has worked better in some places than others. In New Caledonia, it was a lot less obtrusive and so has caused fewer problems. For the same reasons independence would be an easier step for them than African nations. In Australia, some Aboriginals have enjoyed the results of colonialism, but many haven't, particularly the thousands who were massacred by the British.

Have a look at Rwanda for an example of the problems of colonialism. Before the Rwandans were told by the colonialists that there was a divide between Hutus and Tootsies, they didn't see that divide. They also didn't have the guns to carry out the massacres we saw in the 90s. I think a democractic system that negotiates with and coexists with smaller tribal systems is the best way to go, similarly to what New Caledonia has to some degree and is working more towards.

Tootsies

Sorry...this made me laugh. I couldn't understand why Dustin Hoffman was in colonial Africa. It's spelled "Tutsie".

for those who claim to be stalwart advocates of any type of freedom--but most especially individual freedom--to consider such a thing (much less defend it) boggles the mind. if tomorrow a race of extraterrestials arrived and decided to 'assist' us, id hope yall would join me in the

I understand your point, and I didn't say that returning to colonialism was the great hope of all mankind. The Belgians (the late-bloomers, as far as European colonialist nations were concerned), for example, were horrible oppressors in Africa, I know. But I do know that for some it wasn't as bad as it was for others. The arrogant attitude could be forgiven, at least a little if you remember that you're talking about conqueror and conquered. There's going to be arrogance on the part of the vicotrs; that's life and that's just the way it is.

However the subsequent colonialism was also anything but idealistic, and it did cause many of the problems in those places.

True, true, and I could give a long list of those problems too.

Colonialism had good points and bad. But let’s not mix Colonialism with the spreading of Democracy. Far too many have placed the same stigma for on both of them, IMO.

Democracy is fragile and needs to be watched. It is so easy for a young Democracy to slip into a Dictatorship. During and after WWI young Democracies (Russia, Italy, and Germany) was warped and ended because everybody thought the job was done and went home. After WW2 we stayed longer and things turned out better. For all those wishing to cut and run in Iraq, just remember that if we don't help young Democracies to stay alive, we may end up facing something far worse then what was there originally. This also goes for all the eastern European nations too.

"The old momma Soviet Bear maybe dead, but she had cubs that could grow up to be bigger then her. That is why we are still here."
Quote from LTC John Roe during a briefing to me while stationed in Germany after the Collapse of the USSR.

That's My Two Cents