A Productive Colonialism Vs Unproductive Independence

[DR OSMAN]

I want to present a theory outside the 'woke' narrative that colonialism is all bad. My premise is a productive colonialism beats hands-down an unproductive independence. So let's rate colonial powers french/italians/British who all had a hand in our continent and regions and also the globe. Im aware of 'german and dutch' colonies and 'spanish' but I haven't done a deep investigations on them.

The british colonies seem to leave something behind for the locals to develop from as long as it's a 'colony' and not 'indirect rule' arrangements. The growth of india from where it was and the 'gap' that was filled by britain is amazing. They heavily invested in their infrastructure, health, education to raise up human capital even though it wasn't 100% purely for the local interest and they wanted to ensure they had healthy, educated workforce and the necessary infrastructure to facilitate that.

But either way the Indians did gain something to build from. South Africa and Kenya story also as their the most successful in the continent is undeniable. Nigeria/Ghana seem to be leaps and bounds ahead from other french territories in west africa. So let's compare colonials performance against themselves and their legacies. Even Hong Kong is a testament to the British colonial performance.

I heard the italians weren't good in terms of investment in the locals, they even took their train tracks back in the south lol. I'll need to study eritrea-libya experiences to see if their is correlation occurring.

 

[DR OSMAN]

The Ethiopians boast about no colonialism, I respond a productive colonialism is far better then a unproductive independence. Look at south yemen and how much the brits invested to create a human capital then the ottoman run north yemen. No wonder they don't get along with the north being ignorant and lacking human development wanting to rule a south yemen where all of yemen civilizations tend to be and the colonial gain on their population would leave behind a legacy of feeling superior to the dummy north yemen under ottoman.

 

[Shaygoosh]

@DR OSMAN

Word of advice sxb the kids here have adhd, any thread more than a paragraph they simply do not respond to it! Sheekada gaabi and be concise. I know this will be a challenge for you mr 30 paragraph posts! My two cents for the day bruv!

 

[Thalassocracy]

Completely disagree always seek independence

producing little but being self sufficient has more barakah and is worth more than producing a lot depending on others, all your surplus goes to them

What was missing before was aqoonta and know what is missing is discipline and is-xakamayn

 

[Thalassocracy]

Also colonialist dont have perfect knowledge

The Italians completely failed to develop a fitting agricultural system for Somalia which is the prerequisite for a stable forward planning society

 

[Waa dhamatay]

I dnrd a single molecule of your essay

 

[DR OSMAN]

Also colonialist dont have perfect knowledge

The Italians completely failed to develop a fitting agricultural system for Somalia which is the prerequisite for a stable forward planning society

So u think it's better being independent rule of yourself n poor n ignorant n less developed then say a colonial region who became more productive then where they were before colonialism?

 

[seldiboy]

I heard the italians weren't good in terms of investment in the locals, they even took their train tracks back in the south lol. I'll need to study eritrea-libya experiences to see if their is correlation occurring.

Italians put quite a lot of capital into Eritrea. When the Brits occupied Eritrea during WW2, they stripped all the train tracks, mines, fisheries, cables and other infrastructure and shipped it off to South Asia for use in their colonies. The actual infrastructure that they left has been maintained well and put to good use.

In terms of the nature of their colonisation, the Italians were the most benevolent. While they didn't have the resources or capital that the Brits had, their tangible output in the colonies proportional to their means was probably greater. They brought the civil aspects of Europe while restraining from the brutish and cruel behaviour of the other Western European imperialists. You can go to Asmara and ask some of the Old Boys what they thought of the Colonial Period. You'll probably find that they have quite a strong fondness of the Italians

 

[Bari🐍]

I think it depends. In resource rich countries the effects were horrible. The objective was to just plunder and loot the wealth. In other places that were not as resource rich, infrastructure, technology, and commercial networks were created that would then be inherited upon freedom.

 

[Omar del Sur]

I would like to know how colonization benefitted the US Indians who pretty much don't exist anymore due to being genocided.

 

[DR OSMAN]

Italians put quite a lot of capital into Eritrea. When the Brits occupied Eritrea during WW2, they stripped all the train tracks, mines, fisheries, cables and other infrastructure and shipped it off to South Asia for use in their colonies. The actual infrastructure that they left has been maintained well and put to good use.

In terms of the nature of their colonisation, the Italians were the most benevolent. While they didn't have the resources or capital that the Brits had, their tangible output in the colonies proportional to their means was probably greater. They brought the civil aspects of Europe while restraining from the brutish and cruel behaviour of the other Western European imperialists. You can go to Asmara and ask some of the Old Boys what they thought of the Colonial Period. You'll probably find that they have quite a strong fondness of the Italians

Maybe that's why Eritrea left ethiopia, an unproductive independence which ethio brags about cannot host a productive region that was under colonialism. That's probably why Eritrea has way more brains then the ethiopians till today as u can see how much they cry about eritrea kinda like the ignorant north yemenis(unproductive independence) vs south yemeni(colonial benefitted region).

My grandmother who experienced when the brits came n beat italy in mogadishu and said it was the most terrible period in terms of living standards and progress but the italians were absolute 'heaven on earth'. But on the flip side the italians only settled the fertile south of somalia and the desert north didn't benefit an inch. But ironically some clans benefited from schooling when brits came in my region especially mudug region.

 

[Shaygoosh]

I would like to know how colonization benefitted the US Indians who pretty much don't exist anymore due to being genocided.

Money ofc

 

[DR OSMAN]

I would like to know how colonization benefitted the US Indians who pretty much don't exist anymore due to being genocided.

We already agree in principle colonialism is bad but their not equally the same. @seldiboy

Look at all french colonies and how backwards they are in west africa, compared to nigeria/ghana who had a british experience. Look at south africa and zimbabwe how they were untill Mugabe came. Yes Mugabe made u free but their worse off is undeniable too, south africa is also going down that path since their independence in 91. Look at hong kong, malaysia, singapore, india and where they were prior to the british. While china was independent but was so backward. Look at kenya the stand out in east africa.

So the age old question remains gumaysi wax ku tara waxay dhaantaa xornimo aan wax ku tarayn.

Meaning a colonialism that helps you is better then a freedom that hurts you. We can't deny so many old timers around all colonies of failed region loved the colonialism experience in comparison to their post independence states.

 

[DR OSMAN]

It seems like the war between italians and brits in our corner of the world led to both sides removing the infrastructure and gains. The italians did the same thing when leaving in our south, ran with railway tracks while brits did the same in eritrea un-doing the progress by italians.

 

[Omar del Sur]

Look at hong kong, malaysia, singapore, india and where they were prior to the british.

look at US Indians before and after the anglos came. there are not many US indians left to look at.

and as far as India.... India pre-British was one of the richest countries in the world.... British imperialism is a menace.

 

[DR OSMAN]

look at US Indians before and after the anglos came. there are not many US indians left to look at.

and as far as India.... India pre-British was one of the richest countries in the world.... British imperialism is a menace.

India was a rich civilization in comparison to it's region or sphere of influence no doubt, but to conclude india was at any scale the same as industrial britain is also making u look silly. India had a very fuedal rugged and slovenly method of industries not industrial, it's commerce also was very primitive, forget academics loooooool, the growth in their human capital is tremedous compared to were they were prior to british.

 

[Hilmaam]

There are different types of colonization. Native Americans had perfect land. Pristine rivers, gold, rich farmland America was blessed. The natives were also way behind due to being secluded , in terms of technology and immune system. Europeans did what’s called settler colonization. They massacred and replaced natives to take over land for resources and freedom

most of africa Europeans did exploitation colonization. The land was harsh due to tropical diseases like malaria and tstse fly . They setup bases of operation and built government controlled by them and extracted resources. Same thing for India they had tropical diseases and huge population that was to big to replace.

 

[DR OSMAN]

@Omar del Sur I love your patriotism but don't let it get out of control.

India business was slovenly n very primitive and relied on word of mouth no contract or legal structures the west brought. Its agriculture was slovenly and manual and hand based not tractors. They didnt have mass manufacturing through machinery either which was born from the west, they did things thru manual/craft method lol.

But the biggest gain was their schools which created their impressive academics, doctors, technology ppl all over the world, did that exist prior to british? even china was the same as india refusing colonialism but then saw hong kong get rich and educated while they were in farms doing agricuture the same way of the pharoahs 5000 years ago, forget academics lol, no progress

 

[Hilmaam]

There are different types of colonization. Native Americans had perfect land. Pristine rivers, gold, rich farmland America was blessed. The natives were also way behind due to being secluded , in terms of technology and immune system. Europeans did what’s called settler colonization. They massacred and replaced natives to take over land for resources and freedom

most of africa Europeans did exploitation colonization. The land was harsh due to tropical diseases like malaria and tstse fly . They setup bases of operation and built government controlled by them and extracted resources. Same thing for India they had tropical diseases and huge population that was to big to replace.

In Somalias case we were strategic outpost for European powers they used for refueling station and access to ports to assert dominance in Red Sea and Indian ocean. There was not much to extract so we only got small taste of colonizations horror. The people with rubber, oil, gold and diamonds got brunt of it

 

[DR OSMAN]

There are different types of colonization. Native Americans had perfect land. Pristine rivers, gold, rich farmland America was blessed. The natives were also way behind due to being secluded , in terms of technology and immune system. Europeans did what’s called settler colonization. They massacred and replaced natives to take over land for resources and freedom

most of africa Europeans did exploitation colonization. The land was harsh due to tropical diseases like malaria and tstse fly . They setup bases of operation and built government controlled by them and extracted resources. Same thing for India they had tropical diseases and huge population that was to big to replace.

Plus the people were more advanced then aborigines/native indians due to isolation from the known world, these areas kept up with the world untill their is 'gap' period between industrialization era, that's where the gap is. It reformed the whole west and plus it's growing enlightment in academics led to a huge human capital growth and they created robust and fair systems due to their enlightment and freedom of ideas exchange to test their laws against wisdom.

U will notice how they invaded natives of america and aborigines lacked industrialization gains to their military.