Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

> a promoter of freedom before the 1960s and 1970s

That would be ironic considering that they had not completely freed many of their colonies yet.



sort by: page size:

> not a single country went to colonise another for hundreds of years to make it freer, they went there to exploit it.

Generally speaking the colonisers established their colonies to access natural resources, being new agricultural techniques to undeveloped lands, and engage in trade. The culture of the coloniser naturally came along with them.

Even if there were no specific goal of bringing freedom that may still have been a side effect.


> such as Liberia from 1860 to 1990, a famously free country though surrounded by authoritarian territories.

Liberia wasn't particularly free as most of us here might understand the term. While the freed slaves’ constitution was modeled on the US Constitution, civil and political rights applied only to the freed slaves who came over from North America and their descendants, while Liberia’s indigenous population was neglected at the best of times, oppressed at the worst. (And even among the freed slaves’ descendants, those connected with Monrovia’s Masonic Lodge formed a political elite that others could never hope to enter). To a considerable degree, the political strife of the late 20th-century was due to rage at this skewed system of government.


> I'm also not aware that...

It was the goal of _decolonization_.

Edit: And my point is that making a hard separation between colonial and post colonial circumstances is a mistake, as many of the post colonial issues trace their reasons to colonial decisions.


>They declined Europe's "offer" (though realistically Europe really didn't have anything to offer its colonies after being devastated by WWII), but where they that much better off under Soviet influence

Well, at least they got their freedom from European colonialism.

Although they never really got that 100%.


> But in the recent past, countries have been more eager to join than to leave.

Hmm. That’s a strange form of colonialism


> Propose one colony where the indigenous society was freer

So the assertion is that being colonised increased their freedom?


> only countries that flourished and had tremendous economic growth, are those who had a period of more personal freedom and an almost non-existent government

I forgot about the famously non-existent ancient Egyptian and modern Chinese governments.


> and in Napoleon’s case reinstating slavery

For context: Napoleon reintroduced slavery in certain colonies 1802, after its abolition in the French Revolution.

It was finally abolished by France during the Second Republic, in 1848.

The US only abolished slavery in December 1865.

Britain did so in 1834 throughout its realm.

Mauritania, a country in Africa, was the last in the world to abolish slavery in 1981.


> remember that no country had achieved freedom from oppressive monarchs in Europe

Not totally true [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_England


> Africa was a heavy source of anti-colonial radicalism during the cold war.

However, the political problems and impoverishment that accompanied the most drastic efforts to throw off colonial ties, did scare some other countries into not going that far. For example, after other West African countries saw Guinea become the first nation to completely end French ties, but then fall into poverty and have no one to turn to but Maoist China, they reflected that perhaps France’s role in the region was not so bad after all. At present, it is not at all unusual to hear a Senegalese person expressly point to Guinea-Bissau as an example of anti-colonialism gone wrong.


> On the other hand US is on of a few modern republics that hasn't produced a tyranny yet.

Tell that to the Native Americans and slaves.


> The rest really is a grieving process for those nostalgic of the colonial period.

You mean, when due process, personal freedoms and democracy were observed by those "colonialists".


> It's hard to call it a 'colony' if its citizens were as much citizens of the mother country as any other citizen.

It's hard to call it 'institutional racism' if its citizens were as much citizens of the mother country as any other citizen.


> Thanks to him and his son, Brazil was the last country to abolish slavery.

Nope, there were dozens of countries that abolished slavery later than Brazil. The most recent was Mauritania, in 1981.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slave...

I believe Brazil was the last country in the Americas to abolish slavery, but far from the last country in the world as a whole to do so.


> They were, and remain, literally some of the most functional human beings in history.

All of human history? Seems excessively generous tbh.

> Fascinates me to see these two extremes in behavior.

I too would need a half bottle of port to write about freedom and liberty while my slaves built me a countryside mansion.


> About: Anti-imperialist.

> amazing empires that ruled the african continent in the past

because then you'd have to confront that african empires had slaves too


> I'm sure the inhabitants of the many countries the British invaded and continue to hang on to would disagree.

The political systems of every one of those countries are freer today than they were before the British “visited”.


> This anti-colonialism needs to cease.

So you would support Germany re-colonizing France like in 1938 to fix all the problems France has?

> also the only one who ended slavery

Incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slave...

The abolition of slavery occurred at different times in different countries. It frequently occurred sequentially in more than one stage – for example, as abolition of the trade in slaves in a specific country, and then as abolition of slavery throughout empires. Each step was usually the result of a separate law or action. This timeline shows abolition laws or actions listed chronologically. It also covers the abolition of serfdom.

Although slavery is technically illegal in all countries today, the practice continues in many locations around the world, often with government support.

next

Legal | privacy