Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
babyblue
Chieftain
Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1174
|
Quote Reply
Topic: the best and worst colony Posted: 08-Oct-2005 at 16:33 |
got the idea for this thread from a conversation i had with some customers that frequents my restaurant...we were saying how glad we were that Cuba is Cuba, with all it's cigars, booze and chics.
what about you guys? what do you think was the best colony...and the worst?
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Oct-2005 at 22:59 |
Maybe the "best" colony can be looked for in India: the British rule
did allow India to reach modern times united and in rather good shape,
without being particularly destrutive for the natives. The worse
colonies are surely also British ones: Australia and North America,
where the natives were exterminated mercilessly to make room for
European colonization. The most extreme case is surely Tasmania.
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER!
|
|
Komnenos
Tsar
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 20-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4361
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Oct-2005 at 09:00 |
The dubious honour of the worst colony must surely go to the Belgians and their King Leopold, a highly underrated mass murderer.
He run the entire Congo as a private rubber plantation from 1885-1903 and during this period, and I quote Wikipedia here: between five and fifteen (the commonly accepted figure is about ten) million Congolese died as a consequence of exploitation and diseases. To enforce the rubber quotas, the Force Publique (FP) was called in. The FP was an army, but its aim was not to defend the country, but to terrorise the local population The Force Publique made the practice of cutting off the limbs of the natives as a means of enforcing rubber quotas a matter of policy; this practice was disturbingly widespread.
|
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">
|
|
Byzantine Emperor
Arch Duke
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios
Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Oct-2005 at 12:18 |
One of the most disastrous colonies, although it wasn't as large of a scale as the British in India, was the Greek colony of Smyrna in Florida. I think it was established in the late 18th century under the leadership of a British Graecophile. The population consisted mostly of Ionian Greeks, as well as some southern Italian Greeks picked up en route, who fled from the Ottoman invasion of the Anatolian city of Smyrna and the surrounding countryside.
When they arrived in the prospective site in northeastern Florida, they had to first clear the extensive swampland that dominated the landscape. The colony made its living on picking and selling cotton and sugarcane. Eventually infighting and disease from the swamp's mosquitoes brought an end to the colony. I think many of the colonists died; I am not sure how many survived or to where the survivors escaped.
Edited by Byzantine Emperor
|
|
|
Jalisco Lancer
Sultan
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Mexico
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2112
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Oct-2005 at 12:44 |
New Spain / Mexico was the pearl of the crown for Spain during 300 years.
The population was decimated by the deseases brought by the spaniards.
The gold and silver from Mexico and Peru kept floating to a non industrial empire as Spain during 3 centuries.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Oct-2005 at 12:46 |
Originally posted by Komnenos
The FP was an army, but its aim was not to defend
the country, but to terrorise the local population The Force Publique
made the practice of cutting off the limbs of the natives as a means of
enforcing rubber quotas a matter of policy; this practice was
disturbingly widespread. |
yes, the Congo 'Free State' was without a doubt the most terrible colony.
Leopold was so greedy that his soldiers weren't allowed to waste a
single bullet. For every bullet they fired they had to give a hand to
the colonial administration to make sure they killed a Congolese with
that bullet. Of course soldiers often missed when fired, or killed
animals instead of Congolese. Therefore they cut of hands of living
Congolese to make sure they weren't punished for wasting bullets.
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Oct-2005 at 16:24 |
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
One of the most disastrous colonies, although it wasn't as large of a scale as the British in India, was the Greek colony of Smyrna in Florida. I think it was established in the late 18th century under the leadership of a British Graecophile. The population consisted mostly of Ionian Greeks, as well as some southern Italian Greeks picked up en route, who fled from the Ottoman invasion of the Anatolian city of Smyrna and the surrounding countryside.
When they arrived in the prospective site in northeastern Florida, they had to first clear the extensive swampland that dominated the landscape. The colony made its living on picking and selling cotton and sugarcane. Eventually infighting and disease from the swamp's mosquitoes brought an end to the colony. I think many of the colonists died; I am not sure how many survived or to where the survivors escaped.
|
Of course this never stopped realtors from selling Florida swampland to Yankees and foreigners.
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Oct-2005 at 17:18 |
most important German colony was Namibia, because of its Diamonds.
|
|
Cywr
King
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Oct-2005 at 08:54 |
Tasmania still has people with aborigini ancestors. For total wipe out
you need to look to the caribbean, where the Spanish ever managed to
kill off (mostly though desease), or reduce the populations
sufficiently through slavery, they were no longer viable and died off.
The few that survived that got shafted when the other European colonial
powers started garbbign the islands, bringing African slaves with them.
Worst colonies to become countries i'd say are probably Angola and Zimbabwe, or the Congo.
Angola started off better off then many other colonies in Africa, but
turned foul in the twentieth century, a long anti-colonial war,
followed by the Portugese pulling out, wrecking alot of the
infrustructure on the way, and left the country to simmer in a 30 year
civil war. FUBAR.
Congo as mentioned had the whole Leopard madness, but add to that the
time that is was actualy a Belgian colony (and not the coonoy of an
individiual) wasn't to bright either, now attempt was made to educate
the locals, so when the Belgians left (but not without leaving
mercenaries to mess the place up more), there were literaly no natives
with anything resembling meaningfull knowhow as regards to running a
very large, ethnicly and linguistily diverse country that didn't even
have an integrated infrustructure, save routs to take goods to the
coast for export.
Zimbabwe was unique amountst British colonies in Africa (save for
perhaps parts of Kenya), where, instead of raising the flag and bribing
loyal locals to keep things in order, but otherwise not messing things up
too much; found the climate and land very favourable, and so kicked the
natives off their land, built their own farms, and then imposed a tax
on the natives that effectivly forced them into becoming landless
labourers, dependant on working for their colonial overlords so that
they could pay tax to those same overlords. Charming.
That simmers for a while untill after WWII, Rhodesia becomes
indipendant, but ruled by whites, virtualy apartheid style, some
natives decide they are sick of it and get to fighting about it, but as
always when violence becomes the solution, the thugs take control.
Britian by now entering its bizarre post-colonial guilt phase decided
it was a bit embarresing and leaned towards Mugabe, horay, the crisis
is solved, mugabe is in charge, and everything is the same, untill a
drought hits, when the ingenious of destroying the countries farming
ecomony emerges as a solution. SNAFU.
Edited by Cywr
|
Arrrgh!!"
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Oct-2005 at 10:17 |
Originally posted by Cywr
Tasmania still has people with aborigini ancestors. For total wipe out
you need to look to the caribbean, where the Spanish ever managed to
kill off (mostly though desease), or reduce the populations
sufficiently through slavery, they were no longer viable and died off.
The few that survived that got shafted when the other European colonial
powers started garbbign the islands, bringing African slaves with them.
|
I agree that the Spanish rule was very harsh, specially in the early
period, when it can compare to the Belgian Congo. Yet it's also true
that more than what the Black Legend would admit survived and that
modern Dominicans and specially Puerto Ricans are strongly Carib of
blood.
The only areas of the Spanish empire where genocide was throughout were
possibly Cuba and Argentina-Uruguay. In the last case, disease seems
more guilty than intentional killing, as far as I know.
What the Spanish rule was very harsh in was in culturicide and racist
explotation. But even though, most Hispano-Americans have a clear mixed
ancestry, though a big deal was caused by means of rape and
prostitution. This actually created a new breed of mestizos of Spanish culture but largely Native American blood.
In contrast, look at the English colonies: where are the Natives or the
mixed breed? Even Christianized and westernized indians were expelled
and massacred, like happened with the Cherokees, thout it's true that
this can't be blamed on Britain directly but in the already independent
USA.
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER!
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Oct-2005 at 11:14 |
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
One of the most disastrous colonies,
although it wasn't as large of a scale as the British in India, was the
Greek colony of Smyrna in Florida. I think it was established in
the late 18th century under the leadership of a British
Graecophile. The population consisted mostly of Ionian Greeks, as
well as some southern Italian Greeks picked up en route, who fled from
the Ottoman invasion of the Anatolian city of Smyrna and the
surrounding countryside.
When they arrived in the prospective site in northeastern Florida,
they had to first clear the extensive swampland that dominated the
landscape. The colony made its living on picking and selling
cotton and sugarcane. Eventually infighting and disease from the
swamp's mosquitoes brought an end to the colony. I think many of
the colonists died; I am not sure how many survived or to where
the survivors escaped. |
I had never heard of this incident. Do you have any sources for information on it?
|
|
Cywr
King
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Oct-2005 at 11:17 |
Peurto Rico is exceptional amoungst Carribbean islands, its the only
one with significant native heritage, and little in the way of black
heritage compared to other islands, Dominico is more the sheer
isolation of some tribes in the mountanious interrior that allowed for
their surivival
.
USA post indipendance is a whole different matter from before, but bare
in mind there are mixed populations (especialy in the south east and
south west), just that the US institutionaly does not recognise
mixedness, so those mixed people were either just white, or just
native. Furthermore the native tribs have their own blood rules, so you
are either in or out, not half half.
The the reason why many people claim (granted some wrongfully) Cherokee
heritage, is because when they were kicked off their land they were
essentialy given two options, live in white settlments, or be deported
west, the ones that chose to stay ended up intermarrying with the
european migrants.
Incidently the Spanish weren't much better in Florida.
In contrast, look at Canada, you have provinces like Manitoba and
Saskatchewan where natives make up significant poportion of the
population (i think in one of those two they are literaly a hair's
length away from being the majority).
The only significant pattern is that where natives were more organised
and agrarian, they had greater staying power, where as those that were
nomadic or semi nomadic, were much more vunerable, the only exceptions
being in areas that were either settled relativly late, or areas
largely undesirable to European settlers.
|
Arrrgh!!"
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Oct-2005 at 11:24 |
Best colony: the Proprietary colony of Pennsylvania in the years 1682 to 1754:
Religious freedom under the ownership of the Quaker Penns.
Good relations with the native population (until the F & I War)
No army or militia
Fertile land and plenty of it. (east of the mountains) and
Plentiful game and fishing.
University of Pennsylvania football (OOPS, that came later)
Worst: Belgian Congo as detailed above.
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Oct-2005 at 12:28 |
Originally posted by Cywr
The the reason why many people claim (granted some wrongfully) Cherokee
heritage, is because when they were kicked off their land they were
essentialy given two options, live in white settlments, or be deported
west, the ones that chose to stay ended up intermarrying with the
european migrants. |
According to Wikipedia: President Van Buren assigned General Winfield Scott to head the forcible removal operation. He arrived at New Echota in May 17, 1838, in command of about 7,000 soldiers. Soldiers began rounding up Cherokees in Georgia on 26 May 1838;
ten days later operations began in Tennessee, North Carolina, and
Alabama. About 17,000 Cherokees along with approximately 2,000 black
slaves owned by wealthy Cherokees were removed at gunpoint from their
homes over three weeks and gathered together in camps, often with only
the clothes on their backs.
There's no mention of Cherokees being given any option individually,
nor I have heard of that before. Most likely those mixtures you mention
belong to an earlier period of colonization, when their descendants
lived among whites and weren't therefore considered Cherokees anymore.
It's often mentioned that interracial marriages happened more
frequently among the earliest colonists.
Incidently the Spanish weren't much better in Florida. |
Can't say but I thought the USA purchased it because the Spanish were
unable (or unwilling) to control the Seminoles, so they could do the
genocide on themselves.
In contrast, look at Canada, you have provinces like Manitoba and
Saskatchewan where natives make up significant poportion of the
population (i think in one of those two they are literaly a hair's
length away from being the majority). |
While Canada may have had a better native policy than the USA or
Australia, there has never been a comprehensive integration, at least
since it was transfered to Britain (the French were more integrative, I
believe). I think this is a characteristic of Anglo-Saxon colonization,
that has always seen peoples from a black&white point of view:
European and non-European, while, at least on paper other powers have
been more integrative, considering all as subjects of their respective
empire, without consideration of their ethnicity (though in practice
Europeans and Creoles dominated too). So you have two kind of British
colonies: population colonies and mere resources with non-white
populations. In the Spanish colonies, whatever the defects and abuses,
that are many, you can't easily say where one ends and the other
begins: assimilation was the objective. This can also be said to a
great degree of French and Portuguese colonies.
Btw, you may find interesting this map of Canadian declared ethnicities, to add to the one you posted on USA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Canadianethnicities2.png
Only 400,000 Canadians declare themselves to be Native American (plus
other 100,000 declaring being Mtis or Inuit). This out of 32 million
is not any huge presence, and, acording to the map, they are dominant
only in the peripheric undesirable areas of the north.
The only significant pattern is that where natives were more organised
and agrarian, they had greater staying power, where as those that were
nomadic or semi nomadic, were much more vunerable, the only exceptions
being in areas that were either settled relativly late, or areas
largely undesirable to European settlers.
|
That's largely true but Cherokee were agrarian and made a huge effort
in adapting to the new situation and to western uses, yet it was of no
use to them. The same can be said of other "civilized" native nations,
not just in the USA but also in New Zealand and Hawaii.
Edited by Maju
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER!
|
|
Cywr
King
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Oct-2005 at 12:46 |
There's no mention of Cherokees being given any option individually,
nor I have heard of that before. Most likely those mixtures you mention
belong to an earlier period of colonization, when their descendants
lived among whites and weren't therefore considered Cherokees anymore.
It's often mentioned that interracial marriages happened more
frequently among the earliest colonists. |
Got that off some history program, i'll look into it more. Either way,
the ones that didn't go westwards, ended up intermarrying.
Only 400,000 Canadians declare themselves to be Native American (plus
other 100,000 declaring being Mtis or Inuit). This out of 32 million
is not any huge presence, and, acording to the map, they are dominant
only in the peripheric undesirable areas of the north. |
Closer to 650,000 AFAIK, but thats entirely my point, there are entire
areas of Canada (and some of the sothern provinces aren't exactly
undesirable) where they are numericly dominant, in a manner that
contrasts with the US.
That's largely true but Cherokee were agrarian and made a huge effort
in adapting to the new situation and to western uses, yet it was of no
use to them. The same can be said of other "civilized" native nations,
not just in the USA but also in New Zealand and Hawaii. |
The Cherokee that adapted the most intermarried, the ones that didn't
remained a seperate nation within the US and ended up being kicked
westwards.
The Mauri and Hawaiians are significantly more numerous than natives in
either the US or Canada. Theire existence merely proves my point
somewhat. Agrarian societies have more staying power.
|
Arrrgh!!"
|
|
Tobodai
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Oct-2005 at 21:23 |
From a strategic standpoint of the colonizers wasnt the eastern seaboard of the US the worst colony? You spent lots of many to expand its borders and then it rebels and becomes a competitor nation.
|
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Oct-2005 at 05:33 |
Originally posted by Cywr
Theire existence merely proves my point somewhat. Agrarian societies have more staying power.
|
Yet the more civilised populations caved in more quickly, no?
|
|
Cywr
King
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Oct-2005 at 06:36 |
Yet the more civilised populations caved in more quickly, no? |
Who do you mean? The Inca, Aztecs etc? The were the rich targets first
conquered, but they populations are the once who stuck around the most.
|
Arrrgh!!"
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Oct-2005 at 16:05 |
Originally posted by Cywr
Yet the more civilised populations caved in more quickly, no? |
Who do you mean? The Inca, Aztecs etc? The were the rich targets first conquered, but they populations are the once who stuck around the most.
|
I meant the 'uncivilized' peoples stayed independent longer. I accept that one could argue that they lived in the less desirable target areas, but to some extent that was also a function of their lack of civilisation - if you don't mine gold nobody wants to steal it.
A civilised society is (a) a more rewarding target and (b) easier to defeat militarily. It cold also be argued that a society of people used to obeying a hierarchy (of sorts) is more likely to convert easily to obeying another one.
Ages and ages ago for my scholarship essay at Cambridge we were presented with the simple title '1492' to write about. I remember developing these arguments on the fly then.
|
|
Ahmed The Fighter
Chieftain
Lion of Babylon
Joined: 17-Apr-2005
Location: Iraq
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1106
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Oct-2005 at 17:20 |
best colony India for english.
worst Afghanistant for Soviet.
|
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid
|
|