Colonization for resources is Evil

[Churchman25]

Is anyone under the impression that colonization for recources, is evil. It is because it creates suppression for native populations that live in the regions being exploited. The reason why I am brining this up is because alot of the countries in africa, were exploited for their recources were colonized the country that was colonizing then took the recources made alot of money and sent it back to their home country. Over generations of this when countries started to fight back they did,and won their idapendance but the systems these people were brought up on fell apart and as a country they could not implement stable governments at first. The good thing though nowadays is their are Africans that are trying to fight for change and make their countries stable and profitable.
As a Catholic I think that these things need to be talked, about because, alot of people turn a blind eye so to speak.

 

[Trishie]

God bless you for your insight.
Yes, enormous hurt has resulted from this cause.
Occasionally there has been benefits for the native populations, if not immediately, then later, but as you say, much harm has been done over the centuries.

 

[Arkansan]

There were some cases where abuses occurred, but on the whole, colonization was a good deal for Africa. The colonial powers took natural resources that they weren’t using anyway, and in exchange established law and order, education, hospitals, etc.

On the whole Africa has regressed since decolonization, though they are still better off than the pre-colonial era.

 

[TechieGuy]

Thou shalt not steal pretty much covers it.

 

[exnihilo]

The reason why I am brining this up is because alot of the countries in africa, were exploited for their recources were colonized the country that was colonizing then took the recources made alot of money and sent it back to their home country.

What exactly does exploited for their resources mean? If a people isn’t using their resources then the world is being deprived of those resources. That might sound odd to say about less developed countries but this exact thinking is applied elsewhere. If a rich man hordes his wealth he is being immoral. If a country rich in resources is effectively hoarding theirs that could be considered immoral. This isn’t to say that colonization can’t be carried out unfairly. But sending resources abroad wouldn’t necessarily be unfair.

 

[Agathon]

Pure delusion right here.

 

[Augustinian]

Is anyone under the impression that colonization for recources, is evil. It is

Countries usually get colonized for multiple reasons. Relieve population pressures on the homeland, penal colonies, militarily strategic locations, bringing religion to the native populations, etc.

I don’t think that any place was ever colonized just for the resources. It would be easier just to trade for the resources most of the time.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

No, he’s right.

Rhodesia was the bread basket of Southern Africa, fed half the continent and had the highest education rates.

Now… Zimbabwe is not that.

 

[phil19034]

In hindsight, colonization did a lot of bad. But people did NOT know this back then.

Colonization also did a lot of good in the world today, including the spread of Christianity.

At the time of colonialization, Europe was by far the most advanced group of civilizations on the planet. Many of them felt that by colonializing, they were helping the natives with education, etc.

In reality, the biggest issue with colonization was power vacuums left in some areas when the colonists left. These power vacuums led to war lords to take over. The UN pressured the colonists to leave, sometimes before making sure the natives were ready to rule themselves again.

So let’s not just to call colonists evil, because they had no idea what kind of turmoil would come centuries later.

ALSO - let’s rember that there is still colonization of ideas going on today. The West today still try’s to force their ideology on Africa (esp). When Africa tells the West that they don’t Abortion, sterilizations, and mainstream homosexuality; the West attempt to blackmail these countries by threading to cut off or limit financial aid unless Abortion, sterilization, and homosexual agendas are put into place.

Also Hollywood pushes their sinful view of world on everyone (except Muslims).

So instead of condemning the dead colonists of the past, let’s condem today’s colonists of ideology.

God Bless

 

[PJH_74]

There were some cases where abuses occurred, but on the whole, colonization was a good deal for Africa. The colonial powers took natural resources that they weren’t using anyway, and in exchange established law and order, education, hospitals, etc.

On the whole Africa has regressed since decolonization, though they are still better off than the pre-colonial era.

So I come and take what you “weren’t using anyway” and bring you some stuff you didn’t want anyway? I believe the American Revolution started with such complaints. So as for what Europeans “brought” and “few” abuses included things such as slavery or virtual slavery. Disease, land grabs for Europeans to colonize, puppet governments, forcing traditionally antagonistic groups into “countries” that suited the west’s needs, and above all a high degree of racism. Read up on the Belgian Congo. The unstable governments you speak of were supported in many cases by outside interests,the cold war being a major one. So, should be no surprise that undermining the democratic institution has resulted in much of the current situations. I’ve been to Africa myself many times, yes there are indeed somethings left over that are nice, but the ways they were obtained are amoral at best.

 

[PJH_74]

In hindsight, colonization did a lot of bad. But people did NOT know this back then.

Thou shall not steal comes to mind. Yes, they did know back then, they just choose to justify their actions by portraying native people as unsophisticated. Europeans did not come here to make friends or treat people as equals, conquistador means conqueror in Spanish.

Rhodesia was the bread basket of Southern Africa, fed half the continent and had the highest education rates.

When you create a society that is so unequal and concentrates the wealth and knowledge among a few that are broken along racial lines, it’s not usual for an economy to collapse when that abusive practice is challenged. Do I like Mugabe and what he stood for? No, but he’s what you get in this kind of situation.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

In hindsight, colonization did a lot of bad. But people did NOT know this back then.

Thou shall not steal comes to mind. Yes, they did know back then, they just choose to justify their actions by portraying native people as unsophisticated. Europeans did not come here to make friends or treat people as equals, conquistador means conqueror in Spanish.

Please don’t blanket everyone with mal intent.

It’s simply not true. Yes SOME did have malicious intentions, but some had noble intentions.

Calling all colonists thieves/criminals/conquerors is like calling all Muslims terrorists or all Christians racist. It’s simply not true.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

In hindsight, colonization did a lot of bad. But people did NOT know this back then.

Thou shall not steal comes to mind. Yes, they did know back then, they just choose to justify their actions by portraying native people as unsophisticated. Europeans did not come here to make friends or treat people as equals, conquistador means conqueror in Spanish.

By the way, Queen Isabel of Spain’s main motivation of granting Christopher Columbus his ships was Evangelization.

Her husband had other motivations, but her primary motivation was to spread Christianity & Catholicism in particular.

 

[PJH_74]

Please don’t blanket everyone with mal intent.

By the way, Queen Isabel of Spain’s main motivation of granting Christopher Columbus his ships was Evangelization.

The issue here is being an apologist for something both you and I agree was wrong. Maybe Queen Isabel had some intent to evangelize, but I can near guarantee it was not done on equal terms nor that she was oblivious to how things go done during her time. Those who invested money in these adventures expected profit first and foremost; some might have minimally cared about conversions.

 

[Kei]

The West has been the most advanced parts of the world for a while.
The thinking was that the resources were like the payment for bringing civilization to the various parts of the world.

I would not say colonization is inherently evil. It can be used for evil, but I don’t think it inherently is immoral.

The title calls it evil but doesn’t attempt to say it is objectively evil but merely relays some of the bad things that have come from it, but this is a non sequitur from bad things have come from it to calling it an evil. For instance, an objectively good thing like saving someone’s life can end up with the man whose life you saved killing various people.

I propose that colonization may even be a noble thing, but has been misused or abused in ways that are immoral and evil.

 

[dshix]

The title of this thread is a very different subject from the content of the original post.

No, colonization for resources is NOT evil, objectively speaking.

But in certain circumstances, such as some of those enumerated in the original post, evil may be committed due to a lack of care for the freedoms of people in certain countries which are not able to protect themselves.

I just wish people would not write titles which make some excessively general statement that only applies in a narrow set of circumstances.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

Please don’t blanket everyone with mal intent.

By the way, Queen Isabel of Spain’s main motivation of granting Christopher Columbus his ships was Evangelization.

The issue here is being an apologist for something both you and I agree was wrong. Maybe Queen Isabel had some intent to evangelize, but I can near guarantee it was not done on equal terms nor that she was oblivious to how things go done during her time.

I will not say they did every thing right back then. The world was a more savage place in some regards (less savage in others).

Colonization was a MAJOR undertaking by the entire nation/kingdom. Soldiers went, farmers went, carpenters went, children went, wives went, priests went, miners went, fishermen went, explorers went, etc. Not everyone involved had malicious intent.

And when we take this “colonialists we’re evil men” approach to history, we wind up ignoring all the good that was done too or worse, throw the good in with the bad.

If the Spanish would have never gone to Mexico and Central America, how much longer would human sacrifice continued? Would Our Lady of Guadalupe ever have happened if St Juan Diego (an American Native himself) was never Baptized?

And too be clear, I have Native American ancestry, esp on my mother’s side. And there is not a single day that I wish Christopher Columbus never landed on the island some of my mom’s ancestors are from.

God Bless

 

[PJH_74]

I’m going to make one general comment, what would you think if this was done to YOU. Say Islam comes, would you greet it with open arms? Would you consider a military taking over your country an act of kindness or a benevolent transfer of technology?

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Of course not. But to the victor goes the spoils

 

[Churchman25]

Also it is true some good did come out of colonization but it is far outweighed by the bad. Lots of countries in Africa are in poverty because of colonization.