You talk as if this trade won’t lead to atrocities think of what happens when one tribe gets guns? Before the scramble there was about 10,000 different states in Africa you can’t just trade with them and not think there will be big bloodshed. There will be bloodshed maybe even more, how much worse would the Zulu wars have been if everyone had guns instead of just one side? If Europeans don’t take over other parts of the world and just trade with them doesn’t mean less people will Die you will just end up with four five Europe’s that will have wars and maybe genocides. To sum up the whole “just trade” thing wouldn’t work as OTL Europe just had trade with no outside powers trying to take it over yet the 20th century saw the worlds two most destructive wars. If Africa had been free in the 20th century and had OTL Europe tech there would be just as many dead as in OTL colonial Africa
OTL Europe just had trade with no outside powers trying to take it over yet the 20th century saw the worlds two most destructive wars.
So the Logic here is "The natives would have been killing and oppressing each-other anyways, It's better if we were the ones who did it."
For some reason I am not following your reasoning.
Decolonization was a mess because people are naturally rebellious. So shocking - people reacting badly to long mass patronization and misrule.... NOT.![]()
Iraq and the Philippines were freed with a democracy, but both were happy to let it fall, of course. Decolonized seem to have been rebellious for half a centuryish of being as unlike and anti their ex-colonizers as possible.
After that, peoples seem to revert to less rebellious ways. Democracy's long back in the Philippines and Iraqis are happy now about its resumption.
For those supporting Britain.... The sugar and
plantation economy of the british carriabean....Black
treatment on Barbados was IMO disgusting and horrible. Let's not get into the aparthied discrimination in Africa. Or the fact that the British succeeded in wiping out the relegion people and culture of hundreds of African tribes. look at former british territories in Africa today. That was due to Britain. Hope that answers your question
About India the British treated Indians as second class citizens. Deprived them of human rights forced them into the worst jobs activly promoted mass westernization and forced Indians to give up on their culture and relegion. During the sepoy rebbelion the rebel leaders were strapped to cannons and blown to pieces. Mass segregation. Of course British rule benefited India not for Indians but for whites in India.
Wars motivated, to a large degree, by the imperial ambitions of European nations and the sometimes exclusionary practices of existing empires.
but nor do I think that Africans would merely just taken the Europeans up on an offer of guns and promptly start to have massacred each other. Even the question of a higher death toll I think is questionable, given the general military superiority Conflict would have occured in Africa without European colonialism, but with regards to death tolls and intensities I doubt they would have reached the level that occured in our timeline.
037771 said "I hold no truck with the idea that our 'Western' civilisation is in any way superior to other ones". Actually it showed it was superior in both the ability to generate power and influence and in the way it appealed to so many people around the world. What he may have meant, which is a totally different point is in rejecting the idea that western people are in any way inherently superior? That I would agree with but in large part the view became popular in many parts of the west because of the demonstrated superiority of western culture.
After all the Arab spring for instance and earlier efforts to improve human rights and make rulers more responsible to the desires of the population are, with a few exceptions, generally based on western ideas in those fields. It should not be overlooked that the colonial empires ruled as much by their ideas as their military might.
Colonialism helped by bringing civilisation to once barbaric countries and also the colonial country built industry in the colony so this helped to modernise and industrialise.
IN SHORT, For Better.
In regards to India, we should have given it more autonomy from the start. The reason for this is because of the rebellions like the 1857 Indian Mutiny. If it had been given autonomy and not been under the control of the EIC there might not have been one. Not having to deal with rebellions means we could have focused more on industrialising.
Colonialism helped by bringing civilisation to once barbaric countries and also the colonial country built industry in the colony so this helped to modernise and industrialise.
IN SHORT, For Better.