Economis benefits of Imperialism and colonization

[VicBee]

Several schools of thought regarding the impact of colonialism/imperialism on the conquered people, and not all colonial powers acted with the same intent, and it would be wrong to believe only white people were colonizers. Africa is a good example, because so many western nations colonized that continent; Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy... For some it was strictly about getting resources, others was about religion or rule of laws or civilizing mission. Some colonizers sought to integrate the colonies with the motherland, while others had no such goals. The colonized people's experience was very different and, ironically, the greater the integration, the more bloody the fight for independence became.
The OP is misunderstanding the impact of colonialism on the colonized, the clash of cultures, of humanity versus economy, the dominant versus the dominated. The colonizers left semblance of their own culture, and in some cases plenty of things, to people who in large parts didn't ask for them. Others embraced the modernized systems left by the colonizers. One thing is for sure though... No one wants to be told by a foreigner how to be in their own house.

 

[TheDawn]

The introduction of modern education, the improvement of women's lives, the improvement of infrastructure as a result of the construction of railways, hospitals, and schools, modern governance systems, as well as the introduction of industrialization are just a few of the positive impacts of imperialism/ colonization. Look no further than India.
South Africa is another great example and everything was given to the present government on a silver platter but those now in control screwed it all up. Once a thriving country, south africa is extremely dangerous and corrupt.
Ethiopia was one area of africa not affected by imperialism ( unfortunately) and it continues to be a very primitive country and one of the poorest in the world.
The economic benefits of imperialism are palpable. India clearly took the ball and ran with it. They have a way to go but its looking good.
Africa is another story unfortunately.

Imperialism and colonization is a form of procuring cheap production costs in the inputs of their production, in terms of raw material and human labour for the purpose of maximizing economic profit, nothing more. The colonists were there to make $$, not really to start a humanitarian effort. Yes the colonists might have given back to the country/region from which they procured their cheap inputs but it is at a small fraction of how much profit it has extracted from the colonized places, far from being equitable. Yes it might have resulted in some improvements in the local infrastructure of the colonized places but it is the imperialists or the colonists that extracted the disproportionately large benefit from the colonization endeavours as evident from the wide disparity in the development in all aspects of the colonized nations vs. the development in the colonist nations that the colonized nations, albeit slightly improved, still remained far behind in development.

If you want to see how more equitable outsourcing instead of colonization would've resulted, just look at China, where the western nations set up business ventures and had products manufactured using its cheap labour there, it's grown from a third-world developing country to the second largest economy in the world within a span of 30+ years. Is it simply because China is just better and smarter? Perhaps, but with more equal profit-sharing agreements like giving China 51% of the profit while Disney only retains 49% of the profit from the Disney joint venture in Shanghai really helps also.

 

[TheDawn]

One thing is for sure though... No one wants to be told by a foreigner how to be in their own house.

But they should if the people want it when it meant bettering their lives.

 

[VicBee]

But they should if the people want it when it meant bettering their lives.

Give me an example of a democratically elected colonizer

 

[TheDawn]

Give me an example of a democratically elected colonizer

Britain (who's started towards the system of the constitutional monarchy since the Magna Carta) , France since the French Revolution, but why is this relevant? LOL

 

[schizo]

Britain (who's started towards the system of the constitutional monarchy since the Magna Carta) , France since the French Revolution, but why is this relevant? LOL

I think he meant democratically elected amongst the colonized. Obviously they don't have any say in the decision process, which is all done by the imperial power (not to sound the high moral tone of Marxist ideology.)

 

[TheDawn]

I think he meant democratically elected amongst the colonized. Obviously they don't have any say in the decision process, which is all done by the imperial power (not to sound the high moral tone of Marxist ideology.)

No he meant the colonizing country:

Give me an example of a democratically elected colonizer

 

[VicBee]

No he meant the colonizing country:

Let me rephrase... Give me a country that has democratically welcomed a colonizer to run their country.

I was just answering your point about people should welcome colonizers who better their life

 

[TheDawn]

Let me rephrase... Give me a country that has democratically welcomed a colonizer to run their country.

I was just answering your point about people should welcome colonizers who better their life

No government would welcome colonizers, and never wanted them in the first place no but for the people of the colonized country? It's a complicated one. After the colonizers improved the conditions of people in the country and introduced ideas that the government really doesn't want its people to know? I dunno. The act of colonization itself is not with any altruistic motives; it is an economic move, yes but the colonization did build much-needed infrastructures in the colonized countries that albeit small compared to the benefit reaped by the colonizers but it still made a difference in people's lives in the colonized countries because the conditions in the colonized countries and the colonizing countries were just too great. If not for such a huge gap in development status, the colonizing countries wouldn't be able to take advantage of it and colonize the countries in the first place.

I can tell you I have talked to Eastern Indian people personally who appreciated what Britain has done for India and didn't like Gandhi that much.

 

[Nine_Ender]

Only a racist tool like OP would openly discuss the old white run governments of South Africa and determine that they were a model on how to run a country. Those government were highly corrupt and extremely dangerous to the well being of any member of the black majority there. Including government sponsored murders and essentially enslaving many citizens into slums with limited employment opportunities. It's immoral to characterize such regimes as being positive forces. It's like saying the Nazis were ok because they ended hyperinflation in Germany.