@Chipthemonk To assist your imagination, consider Japan. It wasn’t colonised (in fact it eventually became a coloniser) but found its own path to development.
If they became a colonizer, then they were not “in need” of technological advancement. And when I say technological advancement, I’m referring to things like communication, healthcare, a court of law, and so much more.
The places that got colonized got colonized because they were not as well developed, both in terms of capacity, infrastructure, and technology, to name a few things.
Colonialism allowed places not like Japan to become as advanced as Japan.
@Chipthemonk@boyi Point is, before being colonised, India was at a similar level of tech to Japan; some would say India’s textiles were ahead. So if left to themselves, what makes you think they wouldn’t have built railways etc. as Japan did? Likewise, Ethiopia already had roads, courts etc. when briefly occupied by Italy. The Italians’ advantage was an air force & poison gas.
@Chipthemonk What you say about being advanced is true if defined militarily. So they “needed to be colonised” because they were unable to repel colonisers (as Japan did, and as Ethiopia did until the 1930s)?
Many natives welcomed the colonizers because they could trade with the them and advance their own cultures. It wasn’t purely about oppressors and oppressed. That binary view is simply removed from reality.
@Chipthemonk What if the real false binary is between “natives” & “colonisers?” If each of those contained classes with different interests? Indeed some “natives” were willing to ally with some colonisers, where indigenous elites were exploitative. Likewise some “colonisers” (e.g. indentured servants from Europe) allied themselves with indigenous people because they themselves were exploited by settler elites. #ClassAnalysis
I would agree that colonizers and natives is a false binary, or more an oversimplification.
I do notice, however, that your language often evokes the ideas of exploitation, where one party is always exploiting another. It’s similar to the idea that one group is always oppressing another. It’s a binary view. The world cannot be divided solely into oppressors and oppressed. It’s far more complicated.
@Chipthemonk To assist your imagination, consider Japan. It wasn’t colonised (in fact it eventually became a coloniser) but found its own path to development.
If they became a colonizer, then they were not “in need” of technological advancement. And when I say technological advancement, I’m referring to things like communication, healthcare, a court of law, and so much more.
The places that got colonized got colonized because they were not as well developed, both in terms of capacity, infrastructure, and technology, to name a few things.
Colonialism allowed places not like Japan to become as advanced as Japan.
@Chipthemonk @boyi Point is, before being colonised, India was at a similar level of tech to Japan; some would say India’s textiles were ahead. So if left to themselves, what makes you think they wouldn’t have built railways etc. as Japan did? Likewise, Ethiopia already had roads, courts etc. when briefly occupied by Italy. The Italians’ advantage was an air force & poison gas.
If they were as advanced, then they wouldn’t have been colonized. The railways were introduced by the British colonizers.
Sure, many places would have eventually caught up, maybe, but it would have taken a long, long time.
The anti colonialism narrative that is big these days could use a lot more nuance.
@Chipthemonk What you say about being advanced is true if defined militarily. So they “needed to be colonised” because they were unable to repel colonisers (as Japan did, and as Ethiopia did until the 1930s)?
Many natives welcomed the colonizers because they could trade with the them and advance their own cultures. It wasn’t purely about oppressors and oppressed. That binary view is simply removed from reality.
@Chipthemonk What if the real false binary is between “natives” & “colonisers?” If each of those contained classes with different interests? Indeed some “natives” were willing to ally with some colonisers, where indigenous elites were exploitative. Likewise some “colonisers” (e.g. indentured servants from Europe) allied themselves with indigenous people because they themselves were exploited by settler elites. #ClassAnalysis
I would agree that colonizers and natives is a false binary, or more an oversimplification.
I do notice, however, that your language often evokes the ideas of exploitation, where one party is always exploiting another. It’s similar to the idea that one group is always oppressing another. It’s a binary view. The world cannot be divided solely into oppressors and oppressed. It’s far more complicated.
Anyway, I appreciate the dialogue.