Is colonialism ever justified or desirable?

[Maya Allen]

As we discussed in class, coming up with an answer to this question
all has to do with what your definition of "colonialism" is. If we
are looking at it as just the spread of and making clones of a culture
in a new location, I think that it is OK. This happens all the time
no matter what you do. Knowledge, customs, technology and ways of
living always travel from one place to another, and it's just a part
of how all civilizations or cultures adapt with others to catch up
with the fast paced advancement going on in the world. When looking
at colonialism as the invasion of privacy, violence, or forcing one's
ideas upon another, it is never alright. People's beliefs are very
important to them, and by trying to change them to your own is not
only disrespectful but insulting in some ways. People who do not want
to change their beliefs will be insulted that you think they are
inferior and that you think they need to be "brought into the light."
Using force will convert some, but overall, it will gives the others a
even better reason not to convert.

[Dixie Morrison]

Maya brings up an interesting point by remarking that the working
definition of "colonialism" happens all the time, every day,
everywhere. This is also called cultural imperialism, and often
mentioned in a negative context, but she's correct in saying that it
can have both neutral and positive effects as well. Colonialism can
also be justified when it comes to bringing modern comforts such as
running water and advanced medicine to impoverished areas. However,
the fine line between technology and culture is crucial here. I think
all cultures enjoy improving their technology, but I think hardly any
appreciate it when another group of people come in insisting that
adapting their practices and customs will improve the lifestyle of the
invaded culture. When the colonizers start using force, of course,
their actions are even less justified. Even good things like
encouraging education for girls and checking infanticide can go sour
because any culture that doesn't already have those practices will
react stubbornly and even violently to a well-meaning nation's efforts
at enlightenment. We see this happening in, for example, Afghanistan
today.

[Mark Nimar]

I tend to agree with Dixie. As weird as this comment may sound,
collaboration is key in colonialism as opposed to domination. If a
country desires the culture an technology of a nation, and wants to be
a part of it, then their desire should be fulfilled. However, if a
country ravages another country, and steals its culture and livelihood
from it, then the said country is violating the other country's
fundamental rights. I believe in enterprises working together, instead
of against each other. Maybe if the Europeans respected Africans and
did commerce with them, a solid global market would have formed and
every one would have benefited. Every nation's talents should be
celebrated and exchanged, and cultures could have influenced each
other in a positive way. However, there was little means of doing
this, and in the actuality of this situation, Europeans capitalized on
the natives instead of collaborating with them in am meaningful way.

[Dominic Ryder]

looking only at the word for word definition of colonization, without
any connotations, i see nothing bad about it. It is only when other
things are added that problems arise.I would see any colonization that
is done by force, or against the will of the native peoples, a bad
thing. if, however, the "colonization" is an exchange of things like
culture, or technology, by choice, or inadvertantly, by interactions,
i see absolutely no problem with it. I have to agree with th rest of
the posts here in saying that such an exchange could be very
benificial to all involved.

[Lucas Morrill]

Justifying colonialism does depend on what we end up defining as
colonialism. Colonialism as the Europeans practiced it was harsh and
inhumane. It took stable African tribes and split them and,
eventually, it destroyed them. However, colonialism, theoretically, is
not necessarily a harsh practice. It is possible for two societies to
coexist in the same place. The Europeans however failed to execute a
peaceful practice of colonialism leading to violence and the
destruction of African culture. The theory behind colonialism does not
seem to be harsh, only the execution of it in the past

[Kyle Calabria]

I don't believe colonialism is ever justified, because colonialism is
always the will of the colonizers and never the will of the colonized.
When a civilization is colonized a large part of their culture,
customs, and way of life is lost. One of the most wonderful parts of
our world is its diversity. If one nation became all powerful and
enforced its ways on every country their would be so much less
diversity and the world would be a much more boring place to live in.
Yes some civilizations may benefit from another civilizations
technology, trade, agriculture practice, etc., but their are ways to
share new ideas that do not involve colonization.

[btay...@colonial.net]

I agree with Kyle wholeheartedly. To me, colonialism is only justified
by those who colonize and not those who are being colonized.
Colonizers historically say that they are doing God's will and are
saving the people they are colonizing. But the last time I checked,
people are only saved by definition if they wanted to be saved in the
first place. If this is not the case, then their is no saving at all,
just one group of people forcing their wills and ways upon others,
which is wrong. Also, colonialism is historically benificial to only
one side- the colonizers. If colonialism truly benefited both sides,
then it would be justified. But even Rudyard Kipling wrote in White
Man's Burden that no one benefits from colonialism, not even the white
man. Only the white man back at home benefits, and only the rich. In
my mind, no one has the right to force their laws and customs upon a
culture different from theirs. Colonialism is only justified if the
area being colonized previously had no people occupying it.

[oschultz]

i agree with Taylor agreeing with Kyle since you both have some very
good points on this issue that we are dealing with. Though that
doesn't necessarily mean that we shouldn't be open to it and that we
can't try and improve it to our standards of morality and do some good
with colonization in the future if it ever happens again. This only
goes to show that while we have learned from our past, we certainly
haven't got our morals in order for our futures.

[Alex Steinroeder]

I agree with Ben in his point about Rudyard Kipling. If the colonizers
were not even benefiting from this process, then it is very pointless
and reckless for them to try and colonize Africa. The only way this
could be justified is if they went to Africa and told them about their
religion as if salesmen. If the Africans wanted to join their religion
then great, but if they were not originally supporting the idea of
colonization, then the colonizers should not act forcefully; instead
they should peacefully leave the Africans alone. Other than a peaceful
spreading of ideas, colonization is not justifiable because it is
mostly in self-interest

On Sep 24, 8:15 pm, "btaylo...@colonial.net" <btaylo...@colonial.net>
wrote:

[jmcke...@colonial.net]

In the end I agree it is all about definition. I think the key
defining factor of these definitions must be the intent of the
colonizing nation. If the definition requires only that a culture
attempts to create copies of itself in a foreign nation without any
mention of self beneficial intent, I cannot say that it is inherently
bad. For example, if the U.N intervened in Somalia to set up a
government to replace the anarchy present currently, that would fit
the definition, but not be bad necessarily, depending on how it was
handled. If the definition on the other hand required that the
colonizing nation had to have at least some motive in self interest, I
don't think it is ever justifiable. This is primarily due to that if a
nation goes for self interest it will always fail to help the
colonized country, as they have no investment in the country beyond
what they get out of it.

[Jon Mayer]

This is to play devil's advocate, but is still a valid argument. If
one looks at nations from a the standpoint of a Realist, colonialism
makes complete sense and is the predictable course of actions for most
countries with medium to high amounts of power. This does not
necessarily justify it, but that is not the point: the point is that
colonialism will come to pass regardless of the morality because
morality is not a factor in international relations. Colonialism falls
in line with the traditional Realist motives of self-interest and
balance of power. Nations will act to preserve their power level.
Therefore, colonialism makes perfect sense. If one is looking to
expand their power, why not either attempt to control the lands near
to their enemies, decreasing the opposing power's sphere of influence,
or lands that are rich in natural resources, which will provide an
economic boost, and therefore a rise in power. This maybe leads us to
see Colonialism as justified: by this Realist view it is inherent that
humans will seek to increase their power, so how can we condemn the
Europeans colonizing Africa, or the U.S. aiding militants in
Afghanistan to fight Russia? These nations acted only as Realists
predict humans will, so how can we blame them for following their
inherent nature. This goes along with the argument made in class that
if the Africans' and the Europeans' roles had been reversed, than the
same events would have unfolded with each side in the opposite role.

Note that this does not reflect my actual opinions necessarily;
instead it is an argument for the sake of argument, and an invitation
to reflect on human nature.

[janzer]

I agree with the idea that has come up a few times in this discussion,
that colonialism is only as just as how it is instituted by the
colonizing power. Of course, this is difficult to measure. There is
almost always a difference in the motives of the colonizers, and the
motives that they present to justify colonization. In many cases, such
as in Things Fall Apart, the colonizing power argued they were helping
the African people. While there may have been some legitimacy to this
notion, it was not the entire truth. This was a perfect example of
"shoot first, ask questions later". They really colonized mainly for
their own benefit, and used this as to not look bad in the eyes of the
rest of the "civilized" world. However, some of the missionaries, who
were the second wave of people to come to Africa, really did believe
in spreading the word about their religion. The second part of Maya's
question, "is colonialism ever desirable", is just as interesting.
Colonialism is almost always desirable, and can be very enticing to
civilizations. Sheer size is often used as a basis for measuring the
power of a civilization. Therefore, it makes sense that many nations
would attempt to spread their boundaries. The part that is overlooked
is that colonialism does not always end up beneficial to the
colonizer, as was the case post-American Revolution.

[Phil Lavely]

I believe that a mild form of colonialism is justifiable. An extreme
form of colonialism is not. Simple, small scale colonizing, to me, is
the sharing of ideas, products, cultures, and religions. Anyone can
choose to take part in whatever part they want to, take it all, or
ignore it all together. The key to simple colonialism, a kind that
would be justifiable, even desirable, is the freedom of choice. Many
people and places would benefit from this kind of colonialism, making
it desirable. However, the extreme kind, often which comes to mind, is
not justifiable. Changing another country's culture, religion,
language, anything, is not right, and ignores their basic human
rights. This kind of colonialism revolves around power and control.
This is potentially dangerous and can cause many negative affects.
Only to a certain extent do I find colonialism justifiable.

[Nick Jessee]

I do not believe that colonialism can ever be justified. Although it
is arguable that colonialism can enhance one civilization or give them
more inventions, products, etc. the products and ideas that they are
given are not always best for them. What works for the UK is
dependent on what their surroundings and natural resources are. They
have found success by trade and inventions, but Africa and other areas
of the world are different. Although a nation may not particularly be
technologically advanced, it does not mean they are not as
successfull. Their success is in their culture, and colonialism takes
that away from them.

[richard...@comcast.net]

Dominic i agree with you, but i think dixie is trying to make the
point that usually when colonization happens, culture is taken away
from the land. Also the natives of the land are often exploited for
work and their resources. And instead of having the money given to the
people of the certain country, it is given to the colonizing country.

[Sloane.Brazina]

What is colonization but hardly anything more than another short story
in the saga of human progress? Ethics and morals aside, I feel
colonization--the desire to impose one's culture or beliefs upon
another group of people--is merely a small piece of human nature.
Since the beginning of time, man has seen himself as God's supreme
creation. This superiority complex encourages and drives our power-
hungry mentality. Seeking influence over others is pretty much in our
genome.
To tie in to Things Fall Apart, I don't think it's fair to blame any
one particular party (ie-stereotypical white men) for colonialism, as
every race or creed would harness the same opportunity to dominate if
given the chance. Sure, oftentimes the tactics utilized by the
colonists are highly questionable, but these tactics are pure animal
instincts. Survival of the fittest, Darwin's theory of natural
selection--weed out the weak to keep the strong and able alive. To be
very anti-humanitarianism, the ends justify the means, even in the
exaggerated, over-the-top behavior of the white European colonists.

[Lucy Fandel]

In response to all these comments,
I agree that colonialism with collaboration as opposed to domination
is key as Mark says, but I don't think that's actually possible. I
can't think of any examples of colonialism in which the colonized
country is willingly working towards colonization. The whole idea of
colonization is that the colonists are dominant and taking over. The
definition we got in class about making little clones of your own
country makes sense but I think it should include something about
forceful control and change. Alliances and foreign aid are different
matters. The traditional sense of colonialism which we always learn
about in history class, I think is never desirable for the colonized
country though the motivation on the colonizer's side makes sense. I
think it's important to make a distinction between colonization and
globalization.

[Jake White]

I do not think that colonialism is ever justifiable unless the group
of people that are being colonized asked to be colonized. When one
nation comes in and forces their culture and way of living upon a
smaller nation I do not think that that can ever be justifiable.
Imagine living in a small country that minds it's own business and one
day representatives of a larger nation come in and take over and
create a puppet government that does whatever the larger nation tells
it to do. I do not think that that can ever be justifiable.

[chloe]

I agree with Kyle as well, Colonialism seems to be never justified,
how could it be when it completely depends on those who colonize and
those who are being effected by it? but on the other hand if no one is
benefiting from colonization then there's no point in wasting so many
issues and points being brought up if not many are willing to change
in the near future. Like kyle said, diversity is something we should
be cherishing, if we don't take in account to internationalists and
differences this world would be dry and the mystery and adventures to
understand cultures and people would be gone. Traveling would become
useless, talking to new people would be pointless, this is something
we must not forget and take for granted.

[chloe]

I also happen to agree with Jake, Like i had mentioned earlier you
cannot decide to colonize a group of certain people without their very
own approval and decision making to be colonized themselves. Why would
you force upon another nations cultures to something they're not
familiarized with and not willing to learn about? if it's something
they wish to study they should be doing it individually but no group
should be forced to do anything that doesn't feel naturally
comfortable to them, although it would be a great experience to become
familiar with one an others culture but it shouldn't have to be a
commandment.