Of course, Belgium has the worst record ever, before 1939 (I would be inclined to see occupied Europe under the Nazis as " sort of " a colony, since it was the way the Nazis saw the thing, at least in the East) but to be fair, the worst atrocities, or the best recorded ones, happened before the FSC was under any formal Belgian responsibility.
Question on the treatment of European colonial natives in the late 1800s
- Thread starter SPJ
- Start date
Admiral Matt
Gone Fishin'
I'll second Russia on that one. The Tsar's subjects on the Don weren't treated substantially different than were those in most of the empire. There was paternalism, certainly, but little else of colonialism's excesses. Not that it was so great to be a Russian, but if you have to choose between living on the Caspian or on the Niger.... It's really no contest.
This situation got even more favorable under Lenin, then reversed violently under Stalin. It was Josef who brought the staples of colonial atrocity to Russia's sphere. Even then, some of it - like forced collectivization and slave labor - was equally applied to the Russians themselves. Still, while Russians died as much on the Don as Ukrainians did on the Dnieper, neither group was especially targeted for mass deportation to a glorious new homeland without any food.
Interesting how things change:
The nearest things to surviving colonies in the modern world are probably places like Chechnia. Wouldn't particularly say that Russia is the nicest master in the world, not anymore.
This situation got even more favorable under Lenin, then reversed violently under Stalin. It was Josef who brought the staples of colonial atrocity to Russia's sphere. Even then, some of it - like forced collectivization and slave labor - was equally applied to the Russians themselves. Still, while Russians died as much on the Don as Ukrainians did on the Dnieper, neither group was especially targeted for mass deportation to a glorious new homeland without any food.
Interesting how things change:
The nearest things to surviving colonies in the modern world are probably places like Chechnia. Wouldn't particularly say that Russia is the nicest master in the world, not anymore.
Only because the Congo was the only "Belgian" colony. The treatment of natives in both the French Congo and northern Angola was just as bad.
Angola in the 1960s during Salazar's rule was extremely brutal. In my experience, countries that tried to force colonies to be an integral part of the metropolis actually made the colonialism more brutal - mainly because the colonial power couldn't then handle the mental shock of their nation splitting up.
I'd say the British were the least worse: they largely left things as they were under indirect rule, and more often they not, they just shrugged and realised the game was up when independence movements started springing up. Obviously there are exceptions: Amritsar, Mau Mau etc.
The general responsible for the over-reaction at Amritsar was court-martialled, and dismissed from the army: What other colonial power would have done that?
I'll be honest, before reading this thread, I drank a bracing cup of tea and prepared to recieve heavy flamewars. Thus far, it has been civilized and intelligent. Lets keep it this way.
twovultures
Donor
And they certainly helped set the stage for the Rwandan genocide when they decided to apply European race 'science' to the Hutu/Tutsi castes of Rwanda.
Of course, France armed and trained Hutu leaders who eventually went on to commit the Genocide. Colonialism and its negative effects are not over, unfortunately, just different
Well, maybe I did not read the OP carefully enough. I considered it more about giving rights to the natives and integrating them. It can easily go along with brutality (for a while) and yes, Portugal was very brutal.
I just finished reading this small article from BBC.com on the topic of French and British Colonial Styles. According to the the French were much more freindly with the natives of their colonies when compared to the British. Here is the first two paragraphs of the article for those interested.
Admiral Matt
Gone Fishin'
Ah, but I think you're putting it wrong. The French weren't more friendly, they just had higher expectations. And when the Africans refused to meet those expectations, or were unable.... If they can do the right thing, and they won't, then it's their fault.
Meanwhile, across an arbitrary border, the British may be being racist, certainly are being cheerfully condescending, but for all that they're probably much more friendly.
HeavyWeaponsGuy
Banned
Depends on the colony.
Overall, generally the British were the... "Best" of sorts.
You could, as a rule, survive as a native and even prosper in a British colony (again there were exceptions), you had to be willing to completely sell your soul and participate in the systematic exploitation of your own people and turn your back on your own culture and way of life to embrace those of the British to do it...
But you could do it.
The same cannot be said of you if you were under Portuguese or French colonial rule.
Overall, generally the British were the... "Best" of sorts.
You could, as a rule, survive as a native and even prosper in a British colony (again there were exceptions), you had to be willing to completely sell your soul and participate in the systematic exploitation of your own people and turn your back on your own culture and way of life to embrace those of the British to do it...
But you could do it.
The same cannot be said of you if you were under Portuguese or French colonial rule.
HeavyWeaponsGuy
Banned
The article makes a valid point that the French were generally all about making the natives into Frenchmen. There was no room in the condescending British attitude for those who weren't white like themselves.
That said, civil service schools and other such things produced learned men in huge numbers, especially in areas such as Kenya where widespread institutions of education had not been overly prevalent.
The thought theat the British were some of the more civil in regards to treating their colonies goes a bit agianst what I had though of Britain at the time. I've mainly formed my ideas of Africa from the character Marlow's comment in the novel "The Heart of Darkness" that London is "one of the dark places on earth".
Also which colonial power prepared there colonies best for independence?
Also which colonial power prepared there colonies best for independence?
Britain by a million miles. The Belgians and Portuguese as normal were worst and France was in the middle. Partly though that's because the Westminster system and the Common Law are simply much less prone to strongman rule than the French Presidential systems. That's why the first act of post-independence leaders was always to try and abolish the Parliamentary system.
From what I've read so far though I would have figured that if the French intended on incorporating their colonies into France then they would have invested in building more schools and factories in their colonies than other colonial powers which would have then benefited the natives after independence.
True, but they also left no native political or governmental infrastructure. So when the colonies became independent they rapidly sunk into dictatorship and corruption. Britain was hardly brilliant but all those missionary schools meant they generally had a higher literacy rate, more native civil servants and a political system slightly less prone to collapsing into dictatorship.
Admiral Matt
Gone Fishin'
I can't tell if you think you're disagreeing with me, but assuming you aren't:
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I just have the addendum that the consequences of the good French ideas and bad British ideas often resulted in bad French behavior and better British behavior.