drlovelife8 Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 Interesting and ok movie. After the film me and mates got talking about what it was based on historicly (spelling). Some said America on anywhere, some Spainish on Phillipines, some said UK on middle east crusades, some said Belgium to Africa, Arabs on Spain (old days), Turks, Persians, this list goes on................ Then I got thinking. America gets so much bad press about this type of thing but many countries wee doing this before America was even born. So my question is this. Do such 'crusades/busines deals' improve or not improve poorer countries in both the short and long term??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drlovelife8 Posted December 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 Double post, my bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin_2 Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 Things sometimes have to get worse before they get better. I think that is the US's "reasoning" when going to war. Short term it makes things worse. Long term...we hope it makes things better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drlovelife8 Posted December 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 Sounds good to me. Where are the examples where it worked out and where it didn't. India-UK seems to have worked out long term, I am sure Phillipines has too. Not too sure about Tibet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobbes Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 'Avatar' the movie is loosely based on Karl May's Winnetou stories according to some reviews. As for your question...since at the root of capitalism it is all about the few exploiting the many then no, it hasn't improved any place. India would have been just fine without the interference of the British. Africa for most parts would still be backwards but at least not tearing itself apart over some arbitrarily drawn up borders. The list could go on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English_Bob Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 Indians and Malaysians have told me their countries benefitted greatly from being colonised. Africa was much more productive and stable while colonised. So were the Bahamas. Most countries opted to stay part of the commonwealth for that reason... Long term it worked out well. It didn't work out so well for those killed and exploited at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitelotus Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 Indians and Malaysians have told me their countries benefitted greatly from being colonised.Africa was much more productive and stable while colonised. So were the Bahamas. Most countries opted to stay part of the commonwealth for that reason... Long term it worked out well. It didn't work out so well for those killed and exploited at the time. i don't think so, like in this movie, navi may lost their nature ,their hurt , their soul their resource and their life in exchage with somewhat MAY cilivilized from the alien from the earth lolllllllllllllllllllll it's sound funny. Please ask your malaysian and indian friend that are they really pround to be the colonized and what their ancester had lost in the past and if it worth for that, think about this mr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobbes Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 Indians and Malaysians have told me their countries benefitted greatly from being colonised.Africa was much more productive and stable while colonised. So were the Bahamas. Most countries opted to stay part of the commonwealth for that reason... Long term it worked out well. It didn't work out so well for those killed and exploited at the time. Sorry Dave, but colonisation is never done for the benefit of the colonised (as missionising is never done to 'save' any souls). That some people in those countries see it as beneficial is a moot point really since they (or us) cannot possibly know what kind of super-power their country otherwise may have become. I too had Zimbabweans come up to tell me that Ian Smith's apartheid regime wasn't all that bad after being ruled by Mugabe. Yeah, right :roll: ...Our brain is a fickle thing when comes to memories because it tends to store good ones over bad ones which is why we always go 'Back in the days it was all hanky-dory...' :wink: 8) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drlovelife8 Posted December 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 Indians and Malaysians have told me their countries benefitted greatly from being colonised.Africa was much more productive and stable while colonised. So were the Bahamas. Most countries opted to stay part of the commonwealth for that reason... Long term it worked out well. It didn't work out so well for those killed and exploited at the time. I had loads of Indian mates when I lived in Saudi. Most of them said it improved the country in terms of being more organised and having better infrastructure (spelling) and health care not to mention an extra language they could share crossong the 100's of dialects and completely different languages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 Indians and Malaysians have told me their countries benefitted greatly from being colonised.Africa was much more productive and stable while colonised. So were the Bahamas. Most countries opted to stay part of the commonwealth for that reason... Long term it worked out well. It didn't work out so well for those killed and exploited at the time. I had loads of Indian mates when I lived in Saudi. Most of them said it improved the country in terms of being more organised and having better infrastructure (spelling) and health care not to mention an extra language they could share crossong the 100's of dialects and completely different languages. If a native becomes a part of its captors agenda of course they will fare well. As Hobbes said colonization isn't done for the benefit of the colonized. Its exploitive and turns natives into tools and part of a machine that benefits a few. As for raping the land the earth is still being buttf*cked as we speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stramash Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 It may appear on the surface that colonisation brings benefits; improved infrastructure, education systems, hospitals etc. But the facts of the post war years showed that many of these countries were drained of their educational elite; the best doctors, scientists etc etc. So, although there may be better systems in place, there are not necessarily the people trained to use it properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 It may appear on the surface that colonisation brings benefits; improved infrastructure, education systems, hospitals etc.But the facts of the post war years showed that many of these countries were drained of their educational elite; the best doctors, scientists etc etc. So, although there may be better systems in place, there are not necessarily the people trained to use it properly. The system does work ..to make money and power for a few :twisted: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce551 Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 The world’s forests are a key to our survival, and that of millions of other species. Not only are they critical to providing us with building material, paper, food, recreation and oxygen, they also ground us spiritually and connect us to our primal past. (Avatar) Never before in earth’s history have our forests been under such attack. And the global-warming folks at Copenhagen seem oblivious, buying into the corporate view of forests as an exploitable resource. Carbon offsets and Carbon trading, phase 2 of colonization? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 The world’s forests are a key to our survival, and that of millions of other species. Not only are they critical to providing us with building material, paper, food, recreation and oxygen, they also ground us spiritually and connect us to our primal past. (Avatar)Never before in earth’s history have our forests been under such attack. And the global-warming folks at Copenhagen seem oblivious, buying into the corporate view of forests as an exploitable resource. Carbon offsets and Carbon trading, phase 2 of colonization? Animals get little respect. Flora gets no respect. Finding living with the planet to be economically feasible seems our only chance for survival. Now if the flat earth no such thing as global warming people would get onboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJTX Posted December 21, 2009 Report Share Posted December 21, 2009 Animals get little respect. Flora gets no respect. Finding living with the planet to be economically feasible seems our only chance for survival. Now if the flat earth no such thing as global warming people would get onboard. Read an article recently about Hugo Chavez and his rantings. According to him, the US is solely to blame for global warming. They are to blame because of the huge amount of oil they use. Chavez demanded that the US stop using so much oil. Seems strange, coming from a guy whose country relies almost solely on exporting oil. :roll: Oh, and George Bush can rest easy. Chavez no longer thinks Bush is the devil. Obama is now the devil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English_Bob Posted December 21, 2009 Report Share Posted December 21, 2009 Sorry Dave, but colonisation is never done for the benefit of the colonised (as missionising is never done to 'save' any souls). That some people in those countries see it as beneficial is a moot point really since they (or us) cannot possibly know what kind of super-power their country otherwise may have become. I too had Zimbabweans come up to tell me that Ian Smith's apartheid regime wasn't all that bad after being ruled by Mugabe. Yeah, right :roll: ...Our brain is a fickle thing when comes to memories because it tends to store good ones over bad ones which is why we always go 'Back in the days it was all hanky-dory...' :wink: 8) You don't have to be sorry - I know colonisation isn't done for the benefit of the locals. But the truth is that they DO benefit. I still haven't seen the movie, but this debate is no longer about Avatar. Let's take a modern example - Afghanistan. Let's assume USA manage the impossible and bring peace to the country. What are the benefits to the locals? No Sharia law, no summary executions, no amputations, protection for women against marital rape, dancing and music and movies permitted, education for girls, control over the heroin warlords, a structured army and police force, stable government, sanitation, health care, infrastructure. Sure the means to this is wrong. A military solution? However, it is clear that there ARE benefits (to those who remain unkilled!). And, although we deplore the killings and oppression, it is undeniable that the vast majority of Afghans would enjoy a better standard of living than they ever have, if USA were successful. As far as pride is concerned, of course no country is proud to have been colonised. But the citizens of these countries live in the present and are proud of what their countries are today. Ask any of those people getting treatment in a hospital or studying in a school whether they'd prefer the old system. Did Britain benefit from Roman occupation? Hell, yes! Do I feel ashamed about having been colonised? No way. Just ask yourselves, "What have the Romans ever done for US?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted December 21, 2009 Report Share Posted December 21, 2009 Animals get little respect. Flora gets no respect. Finding living with the planet to be economically feasible seems our only chance for survival. Now if the flat earth no such thing as global warming people would get onboard. Read an article recently about Hugo Chavez and his rantings. According to him, the US is solely to blame for global warming. They are to blame because of the huge amount of oil they use. Chavez demanded that the US stop using so much oil. Seems strange, coming from a guy whose country relies almost solely on exporting oil. :roll: Oh, and George Bush can rest easy. Chavez no longer thinks Bush is the devil. Obama is now the devil. The US does use the most oil energy etc so it does have the largest responsibility to slow down and does seem to be trying to go that way. I'd say the whole world would be better off if we all thought this way 100 years ago but it is what it is. Chavez and his ranting are of no consequence really just political grand standing. He makes some good points then loses his audience with some nutball rhetoric. Power is a crazy thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan675 Posted December 21, 2009 Report Share Posted December 21, 2009 Just ask yourselves, "What have the Romans ever done for US?" Aqueducts? (sorry, couldn't resist .....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now