The purpose of civilised humans is to civilise the uncivilised. Mistakes are made, but you are naive if you think the Americas and Africa would have remained untouched. If Europeans didn't colonise it, the Chinese, Japanese or others would have.
Is Africa today better off than it was under the white man? I don't think so.
I agree that the Europeans should have change the culture of the Africans but not by killing millions of them. The "excuses" of trying to civilise the "Barbarians" is nothing more than an excuse to use the natural resources in the land they conquered. The Chinese were advanced just maybe as the Europeans and they even got America before them but they didn't have the idea of trying to colonise other cultures, it was all European ethnocentric way of thought.
Africa was better to the Africans before white men, I think it would be better to them to live in tribes instead of centrel cities while spreading AIDS.
Africans killed, ate and enslaved each other long before white man got there. They continue to this day. Whites controlled them better. Spastics and retards have rights in our society but they have to managed. So it is with the primitive. They have rights but need to be managed by their betters.
Cannebilasm wasn't common as you try to present, it existed only in some very few tribes. The white men didn't controlled the Africans better, for god's sake, White men destroyed the blacks and sent them to far lands as America so the white men could enslave them there.
Dexter, for goodness sake, give me the evidence of the supposed millions of africans that were killed!!?
Already gave but if you didn't saw I'll post it again:
The entire Kikuyu nation (the largest national group within Kenya) was considered to be under the sway of the Mau Mau insurgents, and treated accordingly.
Hundreds of thousands of men were sent to prison camps, while almost the entire female population (along with children and elderly) were imprisoned in fortified “villages” set up by the British, surrounded by spiked trenches and barbed wire, the site of torture, starvation and forced slave labour.
Indeed, at one point or another almost the entire Kikuyu population of 1.5 million were detained.
Such are the crimes of colonialism.
Earlier this year i read an interesting book – Histories of the Hanged by David Anderson – which recounts and explains the most important episodes of this dirty war. From my position of ignorance, it was a good introduction to the history of the anti-colonial struggle in Kenya, and (amongst its strengths) Anderson’s book provides ample description of the role class struggle within the Kikuyu nation played. (Indeed, while Mau Mau killed almost two thousand African collaborators, only thirty two European settlers were killed during the entire rebellion - estimates of the number of Mau Mau killed range from 12,000 to 20,000.)
As a liberal “coming to terms” with Britain’s colonial crimes, Anderson’s book works. There is an unfortunate bias, though, in that the thread he follows is the list of incidents around which men were sentenced to die by the settler government (merely being a member of or associating with members of the Mau Mau was a capital crime). As he notes, the number of men sent to the gallows in Kenya was “more than double the number of executions carried out against convicted terrorists in Algeria, and many more than in all the other British colonial emergencies of the post-war period – in Eretz Yisrael, Malaya, Cyprus and Aden.”
The criminal laws the police had to enforce were originally planned to be quite similar to the British codes. However, the colonial rulers soon decided that preference should be given to introduce Indian law in Kenya since, unlike British law, Indian law was codified and thus thought off to be a better instrument to control the African population. The Penal Code, the Criminal Procedure Act, and the Police Act which were introduced in colonial Kenya, were all imported from British India. Next to this imported legal system, the British took into account customary laws: cases involving Africans were guided by native regulations, so far as applicable, and inasmuch as they were reconcilable with British standards of legal morality. The activities of the police involved night patrols in the urban areas, the detection of property crimes, the enforcement of labor laws on settler farms, the execution of death sentences, and, more than anything else, the protection of European property and persons. The enforcement of minor offenses took up most of the police time. In 1937, for instance, no less than 6,000 Africans were prosecuted for being resident in townships without permission, or because of failure to produce a pass, over 3,000 for crimes against property, more than 4,700 for not paying hut taxes, and more than 1,000 for vagrancy. Despite these impressive figures, however, many laws were not enforced by the police who ran their operations quite independently from the colonial legal administration.
Sources:
http://www.cas.sc.edu/socy/faculty/deflem/zcolpol.htmlhttp://sketchythoughts.blogspot.com/2006/12/kenya-and-crimes-of-colonialism.htmlThat's Kenya only.
MILITARY CAMPAIGN AGAINST POWHATAN
During the summer of 1610 in Jamestown, the Governor, Thomas West De la Warr had directed Powhatan to return several runaway Englishman. It appears Powhatan did not respond in a satisfactory manner. De la Warr felt this was sufficient reason to conduct a military campaign against Powhatan. George Percy, brother to the Earl of Northumberland and De la Warr's second in command headed up the military action against Powhatan. The following is Percy's description of the actions that took place;
Drawing my soldiers into battle, placing a Captain or Lieutenant at every file, we marched towards the Indian Town...and then we fell upon them, put some fifteen or sixteen to the sword and almost the rest to flight...My Lieutenant brought with him the Queen and her children and one Indian prisoner for which I taxed him because he had spared them. His answer was that having them now in custody I might do with them what I pleased. Upon the same I caused the Indians head to be cut off, then disperesed my files, appointing my soldiers to burn their houses and to cut down their corn growing about the town. With the Indians dead or disperesed, their village destroyed, and their food supplies laid to waste, Percy sent out another raiding party to the the same to another Indian Town and then marched to his boats with the Queen and her children in tow. There, however his soldiers "did begin to murmur because the Queen and her children were spared." This seemed a reasonable complaint to Percy, so he called a council together and "it was agreed upon to putt the children to death THE WHICH WAS EFFECTED BY THROWING THEM OVERBOARD, SHOOTING OUT THEIR BRAINS IN THE WATER." Upon his return to Jamestown, however, Percy was informed that Governor De la Warr was unhappy with him because he had not yet killed the Queen. Advised by his chief Lieutenant that it would be best to burn her alive, Perry instead decided to end his day of "so much bloodshed" with a final act of mercy:instead of burning her, he had the queen quickly killed by stabbing her to death.
JAMESTOWN LEGISLATION AGAINST THE INDIANS
In 1623, the Jamestown Colonists passed legislation that indicated their hostility toward the Indians. The following acts are those that deal with the Indians.
Act 23: " that every dwelling house shall be pallizaded in for defence against the Indians.
Act 24: "that no man go or send abroad without a sufficient party well armed.
Act 25: "that men go not towork in the ground with out their arms (and a centenell upon them).
Act 26: "that the inhabitants go not aboard ships or upon any other occasions in such numbers, as thereby to weaken and endanger the plantations.
Act 27: "that the commander of every plantation take care that there be sufficient powder and ammunition within the plantation under his command and their pieces fixt and their arms complete.
Act 29: "that no commander of any plantation do either him-selfe or suffer others to spend powder unnecessarily in drinking or entertainments.
Act 32:"that at the beginning of July next the inhabitants of every corporation shall fall upon their adjoining savages, as we did last year, those that shall be hurt upon services, to be cured at the public charge; in case any to be lamed to be maintained by the country according to his person and quality.
Finally in 1655 the legislatures first act for that session was to pass an Act in the Indians favor. The Assembly admitted they were harsh on the Indians and they had attacked the white man to protect their land and way of life. The first Act: for every eight wolves heads the Indian brought in, the Great Man would receive a cow. The second Act: if the Indian families would bring in their children to live with a white family, the children would be educated and civilized and not be used as slaves. The third Act: it addressed the Indians land in that he could not bargin away his land to an Englishman without the permission of the Assembly, and his land was protected from unfair seizure.
Based on the treatment the English inflicted on the Powhatans when they arrived in 1608,the colonists, after the Revolutionary War continued the same methods that had served the English so well as indicated in the following stories as the United States moved west.
SAND CREEK MASSACRE (SE COLORADO).
In 1864 Col Chivington ( a former clergyman that had political ambitions) was appointed the territorial military commander in Colorado. After some isolated incidents with the Indians, Chivington sent out detachments to burn and destroy Indian villages, the Cheyenne, Arapahos, Sioux, Kiowa's, and Comanches's struck back. this give Chivington the opportunity that he was looking for, to launch a full scale attack on the Indians.
On November 29, 1864, Chivington deployed his command, about seven hundred solders with howitzers around Black Kettle's village on Sand Creek. Black Kettle was under the impression that he was at peace with the Americans; he ran up the American Flag and assured his people that all was well. the troops opened fire and charged. The Indians scattered in all directions. Chivington had made it clear that he wanted no prisoners, hie policy was "to kill and scalp all, little and big". Nits make lice he was fond of saying. Interpreter John Smith later testified: they were scalped, their brains knocked out; the men used their knives, ripped open women, clubbed little children, knocked them in the head with their guns, beat their brains out, mutilated their bodies in every sense of the word. Two hundred Cheyenne's, two thirds of them women and children perished. Nine chiefs died, however Chief Black Kettle escaped.( Only to be murdered later by Custer).
The British were really good at keeping records and from available mortality and population statistics it is possible to make an estimate of “avoidable mortality” (technically, excess mortality) during and after British rule in India. Avoidable mortality (excess mortality) is the difference between the actual deaths in a country and the deaths expected in a peaceful, decently-run country with the same demographics. The avoidable mortality totalled about 0.6 billion (1757-1837 i.e. from the British conquest of Bengal to the accession of Queen Victoria), 0.5 billion (1837-1901 i.e. during the reign of Queen Victoria) and 0.4 billion (1901-1947 i.e. from the death of Queen Victoria until independence). By way of comparison, the Indian post-independence avoidable mortality has totalled about 0.4 billion (but one must realize that the Indian population grew enormously post-independence from about 0.35 billion to the present 1.1 billion). The 1.5 billion Indian Holocaust under the British is the greatest catastrophe and greatest crime in human history – and has of course been largely deleted from British historiography.
http://mwcnews.net/content/view/5668/26/
Topic: Idiots who equate colonisation with nazism. (Read 37136 times)