Online news articles that relate to or mention our national (Australian) identity or First Nation heritage are almost always followed by commentary on the British invasion and disgust over the colonization of the land.
From what I briefly read, there are not too many countries that have not been colonized at some point (I believe exceptions included Japan and South Korea). It seems naive to think that Australia would not have been colonized by someone else if not the British. It’s unclear whether other ‘invaders’ would have have treated the original inhabitants any better.
One article by an academic well versed on the topic claimed that colonization seemed to reverse the current prosperity of the country. If they previously thrived they became worse. If they were primitive (as we were) they became much stronger. It’s noted that the article examined a wide time period; to what extent you can compare is unclear. It inferred that the outcome from other European settlers would have been similar and that perhaps the best outcome (at least for natives) may have come from Indonesians settling, with the larger populations becoming predominantly of Muslim faith and First Nations people preserving tribal life in more remote parts of the country.
Would Australia be well behind the rest of the world had we not been colonized, or potentially exploited by more advanced countries as other 2nd or 3rd world countries appear to be. Even if the Indonesian example played out, life here would be significantly different for many groups.
So when people criticise from keyboards in their advanced homes, enjoying one of the highest living standards in the world, a democratically elected government and freedoms for minorities, it comes across as hypocritical. Do non-natives have a right to shame our history if they have no problems enjoying the spoils?
All animals will compete for resources and seek out new territory where resources are easier/less competitive.
We’re no different.
Bigger and more dominant animals of any given species will use force to keep resources or breeding rights for themselves when possible.
We’re no different.
Not exactly.
Social animals (which humans and many other animals are) do many things for the good of the general gene pool of their group or tribe. Its kind of how evolution works, at least in the case of social animals.
So when people criticise from keyboards in their advanced homes, enjoying one of the highest living standards in the world, a democratically elected government and freedoms for minorities, it comes across as hypocritical. Do non-natives have a right to shame our history if they have no problems enjoying the spoils?
There’s also the religious component of colonization. The church pushed the spreading of the word.
I have indigenous ancestry, my grandmother was an enrolled tribal member of the Colville Confederation of Tribes, Lakes Band. The jesuits have a long, ugly, history of working to rid the natives of their culture
, language, and lands. I have family still living on the reservation that will decry colonization in one breath and praise jesus in the next. People are strange.
Google it. Also Google colonized areas vs non and by whom. “Colonial governments invested in infrastructure and trade and disseminated medical and technological knowledge. In some cases, they encouraged literacy, the adoption of Western human rights standards, and sowed the seeds for democratic institutions and systems of government.”
Google it. Also Google colonized areas vs non and by whom. “Colonial governments invested in infrastructure and trade and disseminated medical and technological knowledge. In some cases, they encouraged literacy, the adoption of Western human rights standards, and sowed the seeds for democratic institutions and systems of government.”
Nah, I’m with General Washington. Colonial gubmint can suck it.
But what is the “it” I’m supposed to Google? And are we assuming that when we Google “it” that Google will be a veritable Fountain of Truth and Wisdom?
The criticism of colonization usually is about colonization in general and not an argument that had country A not done the colonizing then country B would have done it, possibly with worse results.
The British colonization of (some of) the US may ultimately have worked to my benefit (though there are lots of assumptions about how counter-factuals would have played out), but I don’t see how that strips me of the right to criticize it.
The criticism of colonization usually is about colonization in general and not an argument that had country A not done the colonizing then country B would have done it, possibly with worse results.
The British colonization of (some of) the US may ultimately have worked to my benefit (though there are lots of assumptions about how counter-factuals would have played out), but I don’t see how that strips me of the right to criticize it.
All animals will compete for resources and seek out new territory where resources are easier/less competitive.
We’re no different.
Bigger and more dominant animals of any given species will use force to keep resources or breeding rights for themselves when possible.
We’re no different.
Not exactly.
Social animals (which humans and many other animals are) do many things for the good of the general gene pool of their group or tribe. Its kind of how evolution works, at least in the case of social animals.
You forget to mention that those social animals will kill the fuck out of a competing group in order to obtain resources if they get the chance. Pushing away weaker groups is how all animals exist in nature. Reality is a bit different from your Disney movie.
So when people criticise from keyboards in their advanced homes, enjoying one of the highest living standards in the world, a democratically elected government and freedoms for minorities, it comes across as hypocritical. Do non-natives have a right to shame our history if they have no problems enjoying the spoils?
Why wouldn’t non-natives have a right to shame their own ancestors for being assholes? What’s the problem?
I don’t know why one would argue that we must either condemn in whole or glorify in whole. To the extent my ancestors were cool, I’m proud of them. To the extent they were assholes, I’m ashamed of them.
Not sure what disney has to do with anything. In any case, I am not a big disney fan, their lines are just way too long for me. Maybe their long lines pissed you off too?
But, more on topic, yes, cooperation against other groups is definitely part of the deal, depending on the species and its social structure. Its just called evolution. And its probably why we humans have so many wars.
The criticism of colonization usually is about colonization in general and not an argument that had country A not done the colonizing then country B would have done it, possibly with worse results.
The British colonization of (some of) the US may ultimately have worked to my benefit (though there are lots of assumptions about how counter-factuals would have played out), but I don’t see how that strips me of the right to criticize it.
The criticism of colonization usually is about colonization in general and not an argument that had country A not done the colonizing then country B would have done it, possibly with worse results.
The British colonization of (some of) the US may ultimately have worked to my benefit (though there are lots of assumptions about how counter-factuals would have played out), but I don’t see how that strips me of the right to criticize it.
What was wrong with it?
They were not nice to the Native Americans.
To be fair they were not very good hosts on occasion…at least the colonists brought gifts with them
The criticism of colonization usually is about colonization in general and not an argument that had country A not done the colonizing then country B would have done it, possibly with worse results.
The British colonization of (some of) the US may ultimately have worked to my benefit (though there are lots of assumptions about how counter-factuals would have played out), but I don’t see how that strips me of the right to criticize it.
The criticism of colonization usually is about colonization in general and not an argument that had country A not done the colonizing then country B would have done it, possibly with worse results.
The British colonization of (some of) the US may ultimately have worked to my benefit (though there are lots of assumptions about how counter-factuals would have played out), but I don’t see how that strips me of the right to criticize it.
The criticism of colonization usually is about colonization in general and not an argument that had country A not done the colonizing then country B would have done it, possibly with worse results.
The British colonization of (some of) the US may ultimately have worked to my benefit (though there are lots of assumptions about how counter-factuals would have played out), but I don’t see how that strips me of the right to criticize it.
The criticism of colonization usually is about colonization in general and not an argument that had country A not done the colonizing then country B would have done it, possibly with worse results.
The British colonization of (some of) the US may ultimately have worked to my benefit (though there are lots of assumptions about how counter-factuals would have played out), but I don’t see how that strips me of the right to criticize it.
I will go out on a limb and argue that genocide is bad, even if the conquering group thinks it has a better culture.
TMI disagrees.
What TMI leaves out is the fact that less than 3% of Native Americans held slaves. Many of those “Native American” slave owners were actually the children of European men that had shown their children the economics of slavery.
The criticism of colonization usually is about colonization in general and not an argument that had country A not done the colonizing then country B would have done it, possibly with worse results.
The British colonization of (some of) the US may ultimately have worked to my benefit (though there are lots of assumptions about how counter-factuals would have played out), but I don’t see how that strips me of the right to criticize it.
What was wrong with it?
They were not nice to the Native Americans.
To be fair they were not very good hosts on occasion…at least the colonists brought gifts with them