Colonization was how slavery was justified, commercialized and gone global, and colonial subjects were treated as an abundant work force for their colonial masters (when they were not hunted for fun, treated as animals, or displayed on "human zoos").
But even if I was "conflating" the too, that would at best a mistake in the use of words, not a "horribly" (sic) thing to do. Slavery and/or colonization themselves would be actual examples of horrible things to do.
> Despite that they don't get as much attention in contemporary discussion (at least, in the US), were European powers' continental African genocides morally worse, or not morally worse, than the New World's (institution of) slavery
That's like comparing Ebola to the plague, both were terrible. If presses, I'd say that European colonisation was slightly less bad from a moral standpoint, because there was usually at least some improvements in infrastructure, schools, there were some efforts around medicine, vaccination, healing, etc. and oftentimes traditional power structures were kept, just under the European colonial hierarchy. And colonial subjects usually had at least some limited rights ( mostly after the initial very bloody years/decades with genocides and atrocities which resulted in a backlash so things were scaled down). Compared to New World slavery where slaves had no rights, and were initially uprooted from where they lived to be shipped overseas for labour. And their descendants were subjected to the equally terrible "born into slavery" practice.
The point is that it wasn't just blatant oppression, for oppression's sake. As people like to pretend because it better serves their victimhood narrative.
Neither were Europeans acting in a purely altruistic manner of course, nobody ever does. The Africans had a choice in matters as well, they chose to cooperate for the most part because they felt that was in their best interest. People always like to take the agency away from whoever's 'victim' story they are telling. It's demeaning.
Two entities interacting, pursuing their own interests, resulting in mutual benefit. That's called symbiotic.
Sure you can drill down and find good and bad, you can't have one without the other. What's the balance between the two?
The main point and the absurdity of these discussions is that people so often try to say that the descendants of the colonizers are somehow to blame for the present state of the descendants of the colonized, whatever that may be, when it is crystal clear that without the European intervention the descendants of the colonized would be in a far worse state today.
The French certainly did, you're right, and Colonization even namedrops the coureurs de bois. But (as far as I can tell) there is not a single use of the word "Africa" in the game. The only mention of "slavery" that I can find in the game--which I have installed, because aside from its super problematic presentation of history it's a really great game--is in the little Colonopedia blurb about Bartolome de las Casas...where they then elide that he advocated enslaving Africans instead. (And, certainly, he later recanted that position. So say that too! But paint the whole picture.)
So, sure, you're right, #NotAllColonizers--but seriously, do you think that the ability to play in that way obviates the duty to actually present history as it, like, was, and not as will make your purchasers feel comfy?
Since this is a fascinating article but with zero comments, here's a discussion question:
Despite that they don't get as much attention in contemporary discussion (at least, in the US), were European powers' continental African genocides morally worse, or not morally worse, than the New World's (institution of) slavery?
As far as I recall, institutional racism in western European colonial powers seems to predate extensive interaction with societies in Asia, and typically stems from the colonization of Africa and subsequent slave trade which depended on a dehumanization, initially at the hands of Portugal. There’s a loose argument in this editorial [1], although not the one I’ve seen before.
Interestingly, for you in particular, pretty much all of the evils of European colonialism throughout the world are in scope.
That's because you downthread hazarded the argument that perhaps (compared, implicitly, to Africans on the African continent) African Americans were better off as a result of slavery.
That's a reprehensible argument, but at least it puts you on the hook for points like these.
Colonization had been a worldwide pattern of most civilizations, from Ancient Greece to the Far East. Obvious irony doesn't make an argument. My guess is that you're playing the 'white guilt' card to gaslight the conversation.
I think colonialism was equally only a part of African poverty. As in the article linked, one of the opposing tribes in his area captured him and sold him into slavery, not Europeans. Niger was created by A Lincoln to repatriate slaves that wanted to return, and had plenty of support. Nigeria alone has been given more money in aid than what it cost to rebuild Europe after ww2. South African would never have had the 1st world development its had, had it not been for apartheid.
Colonization, was brutal, self-serving, and its economic consequences are still felt to this day (especially when neocolonialism through private corporations and puppet governments is still a thing).
You have such a ridiculously warped view of history it's both shocking and hilarious simultaneously. I'm sure your views on slavery are similarly enlightening.
Don't look at me trying to blame anyone for anything. I'm simply refusing to ignore historical fact. As far as I'm concerned what's done is done, we can move on, that the more we try and pin blame the more of a mess we'll end up in.
White-washing history and pretending it resulted in "mutual benefit" is absolutely monstrous, though. The colonial powers differed in their attitudes from country to country, from era to era, but on the whole they were belligerent, greedy, and utterly indifferent to the people they were subjugating.
If there's one reason why it's hard to paint a picture of how brutal colonial powers treated the people it's because they often erased the other side of the story. We're only just beginning to put together the pieces of the true story of what happened.
I'm not sure whether you are aware that you changed the argument. Op was describing the effect of colonialisation on DRC. S/He wasn't discussing the impact of slavery.
There were also different kinds of colonies and different ways of looking at things. Sure the US turned out fine. Other countries in the region less so. But also it's the US if today that's doing fine and you seem to overlook the rather great effect colonialisation in North America had on the natives there. They were all but wiped out and certainly, overall, are not in a great spot today.
It's easy to find many different things today. The direct and still clearly visible effects of colonisation are without doubt one of the many factors that kept much of Africa in the suffering state that we still see today. There is no denying this fact and no matter how many other reasons you find, colonialism is still one of the most significant reasons for the African misery, as it set in motion many horrible things.
Make sense, since colonialism belongs to the winners, who have been whitewashing (and continuing) its legacy at the same time.
From the murdered native Americans (North and South), to concentration camps, mass executions, slavery work (including US blacks), huge colonial wars, all the way to human zoos...
The word is pejorative because it’s a bloody move.
But I think when people compare colonialism to nazis, they should really separate the economic/political/military move of taking over another country, and what happened from there in some countries which was religious/moral/ethical deeds (I mean by that the slavery, objectification of humans, genocides, cleansing, intentional famines, drug trades etc.)
I personally care about that distinction because the later part didn’t stop when colonialism was over, and it didn’t happen that wildly either in a lot of colonies through history.
What was done by Belgians in Congo was not “colonialism”, I see it as something way more ethically evil and proper to the Belgian culture of the time.
To get back to the balloons, the concept that was described was giant companies using their resources to capture whole captive markets in developping countries and grab mindshares+ad revenue on relatively untouched population.
I could totally see the parallel with european companies getting a foot in Asia and extensively use their resources and technology advantage to take over whole markets and become large enough to get the governments under their feet.
I hate to say it, but Africa was better off under European colonial rule.
Yes, there were obscene atrocities. But atrocities seem to have been committed by every group of humans at some point in time.
Instead, the colonialists would take the natural and mineral wealth, and invest part of it back in the country. They would build infrastructure, provide jobs and basic services.
Even today, countries which were more heavily colonised have better outcomes.
Now, many Africans are ruled by their own corrupt tribal Warlords, where the entirety of the wealth is stashed offshore, and there is no infrastructure and no jobs. Whatever mineral and natural wealth there is is being rapidly diluted by unsustainable population growth rates.
At the very least, the Europeans could have carefully and slowly cultivated a local elite to take over the countries, instead of rapidly bailing out.
You think poverty in Africa has nothing to do with historical European colonialism, of which mass kidnapping of people to enslave them was just a part?
Colonization was how slavery was justified, commercialized and gone global, and colonial subjects were treated as an abundant work force for their colonial masters (when they were not hunted for fun, treated as animals, or displayed on "human zoos").
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/08/europe...
But even if I was "conflating" the too, that would at best a mistake in the use of words, not a "horribly" (sic) thing to do. Slavery and/or colonization themselves would be actual examples of horrible things to do.
reply