Imperalism

Fleiur

Well-known member
The Spanish did bring in advanced technologies and knowledge to the Philippines, but they were also huge assholes who sorta basically enslaved everybody who wasn’t white and sorta made a caste system of sorts
Also, catholicism.
How about American colonization for nearly 50 years?
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
Net positive I suppose.
The British Empire spread the Protestant faith, the Protestant work-ethic, Anglo-Saxon respect for individual rights and limiting the power of rulers, across a wide swath of the world. Uncounted millions of people will be going to Heaven who would otherwise have gone to Hell.
On a more personal note - some of my own ancestors were apparently dirt-poor people who got a whole new start by moving out to the Colonies. The wise apple curses not the tree.

The Spanish Empire, on the other hand, spread the culture of 17th-century Spain across much of the world. A form of Christianity in which the gospel was obfuscated by superstition and ritual. A cruel philosophy of government.
The legacy of the conquistador is the mindset that wealth and prosperity are things to be gained by robbery and violence. Wealth is something other people just somehow have, and if you want it you need to take it from them.
When I look at the American Democrat party's new little mascot, AOC with her too-wide donkey-face grin, and consider her proposed policies in the light of history, I say: "Well, you would think like that, wouldn't you, little miss Cortez! Found some new Cities of Gold to plunder, have you?"

(In the long run the Spanish wrecked their own economy, and that of many other Old World nations, with the glut of silver they imported across the Atlantic. But that's another story.)

Even the Pinochet-fanboyism we sometimes indulge in on this forum, ironically of course, creeps me out on a certain level. It's the values and mindset of the Latinosphere seeping in and polluting the Anglosphere.
Hmm, that is a very 19th century attitude, and would get you expelled from polite company in certain sectors rather quickly.

The Spaniards did end human sacrifice and other barbaric practices where they found them.

Not to mention, Catholicism is better than paganism.

I think you might be indulging in too much Black Legend rhetoric here.

The English also did awful things-especially in Massachusetts. The Spanish were willing to assimilate the natives, the English policy was one of displacement and extermination.

Also protestants weren't often interested in saving souls-The Dutch for example didn't care about saving souls in Japan, Indonesia, Suriname. Among others. The Indians in North America were viewed as devils and fit only for the sword. How many souls were lost for that?

Not to mention-the British Empire spread Anglicanism. If you have issues with ritual in Catholicism, be consistent and condemn Anglicanism as well.
 

Scottty

Well-known member
Founder
Hmm, that is a very 19th century attitude, and would get you expelled from polite company in certain sectors rather quickly.

The Spaniards did end human sacrifice and other barbaric practices where they found them.
Not to mention, Catholicism is better than paganism.

It would have been better for those people to have been converted by Protestants.


I think you might be indulging in too much Black Legend rhetoric here.

The English also did awful things-especially in Massachusetts. The Spanish were willing to assimilate the natives, the English policy was one of displacement and extermination.

Also protestants weren't often interested in saving souls-The Dutch for example didn't care about saving souls in Japan, Indonesia, Suriname. Among others. The Indians in North America were viewed as devils and fit only for the sword. How many souls were lost for that?

The Dutch were Calvinists, as where many of the early English settlers in the New World. Calvinism has it's own problems, especially in regard to missions.

Not to mention-the British Empire spread Anglicanism. If you have issues with ritual in Catholicism, be consistent and condemn Anglicanism as well.

Ever actually read the 39 Articles? 🤨
Anglicanism is a mixed bag - but the Anglosphere is not only Anglican. It has Methodists, and Baptists, and Presbyterians, and Pentecostals, and and and...
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
It would have been better for those people to have been converted by Protestants.




The Dutch were Calvinists, as where many of the early English settlers in the New World. Calvinism has it's own problems, especially in regard to missions.



Ever actually read the 39 Articles? 🤨
Anglicanism is a mixed bag - but the Anglosphere is not only Anglican. It has Methodists, and Baptists, and Presbyterians, and Pentecostals, and and and...
Ah I see. I become more of a crypto catholic or philo catholic all the time to tell you the truth. Despite being raised entirely in a Protestant background. So we may be speaking across from each other here.

Actually no-Anglicanism was the official religion and non Anglican Protestants could be prosecuted for preaching without a license. The religious vibrancy in BNA often cake down to the Anglican Church being poorly established in Virginia and the southern colonies. As in most parishes didn’t have priests until 1750. Whereas in the north Calvinism reigned.

As for the conquistadors-they were greedy and ruthless men, no doubt about that. Often times they were censured by the crown. Even if this was ineffective. Also I recall Las Casas actually said the Indians had rights and fought against the encomienda system.

The English colonies were not so open armed to their Indian neighbors. Admittedly that was due to English colonists bringing women, and not European adventurers and soldiers marrying native women.

It’s undeniable though the Spanish and Portuguese were more...tolerant towards their Indios.
 

Scottty

Well-known member
Founder
It’s undeniable though the Spanish and Portuguese were more...tolerant towards their Indios.

Well, I deny that.
And so did this guy:
250px-Bartolomedelascasas.jpg


If his account is to be believed, Columbus was a monster.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
Well, I deny that.
And so did this guy:
250px-Bartolomedelascasas.jpg


If his account is to be believed, Columbus was a monster.
He literally was brought before the crown in irons for his misrule.

Tell me when were English colonists punished for the massacres in the 17th century?
 

Doomsought

Well-known member
It’s undeniable though the Spanish and Portuguese were more...tolerant towards their Indios.
Not really, it was the Catholic Church and missionaries that were sympathetic to the Indians. As soon as they lost political power over the Spanish colonies, the spanyards treated the Indians just as bad as any other Europeans.

The French treated the Indians slightly better than others, but that is only because the French where using them as proxies to attack the British colonies.
 

ShieldWife

Marchioness
I would have to say that overwhelmingly, imperialism had a positive effect on the world. Of course, there are huge exceptions to this, mass murders, genocide, persecution, exploitation, and so on. All of those terrible downsides pale in comparison to the benefits of bringing modernity to the world (assuming we mean 18th and 19th century European imperialism) and all the lives it saves, rights it provides, standards of livings it increases, etc.

Now, even though I think that the effects of imperialism are on average overwhelmingly positive, it was still wrong. It’s wrong to force yourself on other nations and make them adopt your ways, even if it is for their benefit. You can do bad things that have a good outcome. That is why we must always ask: do the ends justify the means? I don’t think that there is a simple yes or no answer to that. It was wrong for European nations to conquer, control, and exploit other peoples of the world - yet if we look at lands untouched by colonialism they are mostly living in the same terrible conditions that prevailed there for thousands of years, living under despots far worse than almost any European king.

So we shouldn’t demonize Europe for Imperialism or scapegoat them for the problems of modern this world nations. Europeans were only doing what every other people does given the opportunity, just doing it better.

Would I advocate for future foreign policy with imperialism as a model? Absolutely not! I’m for leaving the rest of the world alone.
 

Arch Dornan

Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
Now, even though I think that the effects of imperialism are on average overwhelmingly positive, it was still wrong. It’s wrong to force yourself on other nations and make them adopt your ways, even if it is for their benefit. You can do bad things that have a good outcome. That is why we must always ask: do the ends justify the means? I don’t think that there is a simple yes or no answer to that. It was wrong for European nations to conquer, control, and exploit other peoples of the world - yet if we look at lands untouched by colonialism they are mostly living in the same terrible conditions that prevailed there for thousands of years, living under despots far worse than almost any European king.

So we shouldn’t demonize Europe for Imperialism or scapegoat them for the problems of modern this world nations. Europeans were only doing what every other people does given the opportunity, just doing it better.
I see it as a natural outcome in those times.

Send someone with modern morals back in a position to argue against imperialism and what happens?
Would I advocate for future foreign policy with imperialism as a model? Absolutely not! I’m for leaving the rest of the world alone.
I wouldn't with what I know but the future is uncertain because some countries can have no consideration for such moralities.
 

Joku

Member
Obviously it wasn't nice to be colonized, for the most part at least. The Empires colonized nations, because they could get away with it and they thought they would get something out of it.

But the nations that currently most care about those moral problems seem to be on decline, and less restrained nations are taking their place... perhaps, in part, even because of that "moral awakening" that occurred some decades ago? :unsure:
 

Arch Dornan

Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
Obviously it wasn't nice to be colonized, for the most part at least. The Empires colonized nations, because they could get away with it and they thought they would get something out of it.

But the nations that currently most care about those moral problems seem to be on decline, and less restrained nations are taking their place... perhaps, in part, even because of that "moral awakening" that occurred some decades ago? :unsure:
I am curious what African imperialism would look like as alt history.
 

Joku

Member
I am curious what African imperialism would look like as alt history.

I guess it would require so large changes from OTL, that it's a total unknown. Becoming a technically developed society would have changed their societies and mindsets so radically, that it's impossible to say.
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
I guess it would require so large changes from OTL, that it's a total unknown. Becoming a technically developed society would have changed their societies and mindsets so radically, that it's impossible to say.

Which areas in Africa would most likely have developed at least middle ages-level civilization and expanded from there?
 

Joku

Member
Which areas in Africa would most likely have developed at least middle ages-level civilization and expanded from there?

I'm assuming we are talking about sub-Saharan Africa, as Northern Africa did develop Middle-Ages level tech, and they did try to expand but were pushed back? :)

I have to admit I'm not all that familiar with African history, but maybe some area that doesn't have too hostile climate, such as Southern Africa?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top