Sunday, February 24, 2013
Europe's Colonization
Are you all okay with Europe brutally conquering, colonizing, and converting the Americas, Africa, and all those other places we talked about? Do you think that even though it was rough at the time, it all worked out for the better, or do you think it is inexcusable and everyone would have been better off if they hadn't done it? Also consider their conduct and attitude overall, especially after reading what they did to India in our homework for Monday.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think Europe conquering for Industrialization was for the most part fine. The way they did it was not okay at all. There was no reason for Europe to destroy the cultures that were followed by the people they had conquered. They did not know how eliminating the culture could affect the society and the way it was run. Europe was very closed minded to think that their culture was the best for everyone. I would not say that it would have been better if they had not done it because its extremely hard to imagine a world that way since we live in a society run by capitalist values; however I think that it was not necessary for them to destroy the cultures and attempt to convert all of their colonies. They should have just let them practice whatever they believed in.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Treazure- for the most part. My only question is this: What if a culture was based upon an unsavory practice- like burning widows at their husbands funeral (like Ms. Stuart told us), or raping young women (like that place in Africa). Wouldn't you want to change it too? I think that it was wrong for them try to destroy other cultures, but I understand why they may have thought of themselves as better/ why they thought others were barbaric.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Treazure. In response to Paige, those traditions only sound barbaric to us because of our current day values. For all we know it might have been extremely honorable for widows to burn themselves at their husband's funeral. It is their tradition and I do not think it was fair for the Europeans to just destroy it no matter how weird it might seem to us. Plus, doesn't every country think themselves to be the best?
ReplyDeleteI think that we have no way (and no right) to judge who is a better/more civilized culture because our judgement is based on our own culture's ideals, so naturally we think that ours is best. To me, it seems ridiculous that wives threw themselves on their husband's pyre and burned alive, but the culture who created this tradition created it for a reason. That reason probably has something to do with their religious/cultural beliefs, and I have no right to force them to change their traditions just because I happen to disagree. If I were born in that culture, I would probably agree, but since I was raised believing in different things, I think it is strange. Also, you can't politely make a society change their beliefs without destroying them first, so that justification is invalid as well. Therefore, I think it is better to let other cultures do their thing. Call me a hippie, but if we all lived by this, world peace would be possible :)
ReplyDeleteThat was in response to Paige's question....I wasn't just commenting on my own post....
ReplyDeleteI see your point- beauty is in the eye of the beholder. However, could YOU morally stand by and watch while a young girl was raped because that was "acceptable". Wouldn't you want to change things too? I mean, I'm not saying all of the European traditions are amazing. Every culture has good and bad parts. But if you had the chance to change the bad part of a culture for the better, to potentially save a life, wouldn't you?
ReplyDeleteYes but I wouldn't be there to see a wife burn herself alive if I hadn't meddled in their nation's affairs in the first place, now would I? Besides, you have to look at the greater common good; world peace, and ultimately more lives saved, verses a handful of religion/tradition related deaths per year...WIN
DeleteIn response to Paige's question I think that we are taking it too out of context. Of course things like rape are looked down upon, but a lot of the things they changed were not that severe. I also don't think it is fair for them to just drop into a country and call them barbarians. The europeans had no idea how the cultures or societies worked. What the Europeans should have done was show them Christianity and allowed the people to decide what they wanted to practice instead of forcing it on them.
ReplyDeleteGabbi, the people were burning wives long before I would have shown up. And I don't understand how leaving the cultures alone ensure that their is world peace? Wouldn't letting such a phenomenon continue lead to more deaths within the culture, due to their practices? Wouldn't instituting new traditions end up SAVING lives in the long run? And you did not address my question of rape. Gabbi Mohn, would you allow a fellow women to be rapped in front of you if you knew you could stop it?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that we are looking at the right examples here. I don't think that a country can be based on a tradition of raping children, like that can't be their fundamental principle. I think that the real problem was that Europe was forcing their capitalist values on the people and therefore needed to destroy some of their traditions. For example, I believe many native cultures did not have out ides of possession which was necessary to Europe's daily life.
ReplyDeleteApparently I can't type...*our idea of possession
Deletew.o.w! ok, so I believe with some of what was said. I think that it is wrong for Europe to decide to conquer places that had no business being touched. For example, there was a meeting held in which all of the European "power-houses" attended. In this meeting, they decided on specific European countries to conquer different parts of Africa, so all European powers wouldn't be fighting over the same land. However, nobody from Africa attended this meeting. In other words, this was a meeting to basically convert Africa into a European colony with their beliefs and their culture, and all of the members of this meeting seemed to have completely forgotten about the people that they must hurt to get what they want. This, in my opinion, seems a little wrong! However, I also believe with what was said above by Paige because in some cases, the people who were colonized by Europe wanted to be like the Europeans and wanted to have their same culture/beliefs. So, in some cases, some may argue that European colonization was necessary, but in other cases, Europe was completely out of line destroying fully functioning cultures.
ReplyDeleteOk I understand the out of context thing, but I still want someone to answer my question. But caroline, according to that documentary, Capitalism didn't start in Europe. It was present in the Indian Markets and China. So it wasn't that that different, in most places. I guess this idea also depends a lot on your view of Capitalism too- whether or not it is natural/good. So some places I don't think it was exactly forced upon them, and therefore it didn't destroy their culture per say. Although you are right about those few island cultures holding different beliefs; Capitalism would have been life-changing there.
ReplyDeletePaige, every civilization is capable of dealing with their internal issues without outside forces telling them what to do. It's natural, because each civilization wants what is best for themselves. Therefore, coming in and "setting up new traditions" as you said will only lead to conflict because natives will always mistrust and disagree with foreigners, and this leads to war! By eliminating this, so many wars would be eliminated as well. In terms of your example of rape (which is an invalid example, since it is looked down upon in its own country), well, thats why each country has a government! To fix their own problems and prevent things like rape. Therefore, outside forces are unnecessary and destructive.
ReplyDeleteWhat if the government doesn't think anything is wrong? And what if the people like the new traditions? Then it ends up being like it was with Marx- he predicts a revolution, but it never happens cause the working class identifies with the morals of the middle class. I just think that the British weren't completely crazy when they argued that imperialism and colonization was their duty; I am trying to show the point of view that they were probably thinking from.
DeleteI think it is a a strange concept for one nation to barge their way into another and think that they now have the right to rule over said nation. The civilizations Europeans "colonized" had been established for thousands of years. It takes a strong sense of nationalism and pride to assume you clearly have the right to control these civilizations. I think it is one thing to think that your country is superior and to want to give members of other countries the same opportunities and privileges of your own country. However, this wasn't always the case when the in European colonies. Sure, in India, people were allowed to travel and study in Britain, but in Africa, the Congonese were greatly oppressed and basically forced into a system of slavery. Britain imported opium into China,even though they knew its grim effects. It seems like Europe's goal was often to "oppress" and not to "colonize".
ReplyDeleteWow, guys--I'm impressed by the high level of discourse/argument going on here! I think good points have been made on both sides. Personally, I think that some cultural practices are genuinely morally unacceptable. Slavery, for example, or rape. I applaud the efforts by Europeans (or anyone else) to fight against these fundamentally oppressive practices. Ultimately, I think that the values of the Enlightenment are pretty great and worth spreading to the rest of the world.
ReplyDeleteBut this is where it gets tricky. The problem is that Europeans often didn't really take the time to understand the culture they were trying to change, and approached it from a rather arrogant perspective. Rather than spreading Enlightenment values (equal rights for all, etc.), they often violated them. Also, in many cases they were at least as interested in exploiting their colonies as they were in helping them/morally improving them. This meant that they created as many problems as they "solved" in the places they colonized. We are still living in the legacy of these problems.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it was right of the Europeans to forcefully try to convert natives to Christian beliefs/European beliefs. I guess it's good of the Europeans for fighting against oppressive practices but I think they could have approached it differently. Europeans should have been more open-minded to other cultures and taken the time to learn those cultures before destroying them. I think they were prejudice to different cultures and beliefs; if one group of people practiced barbaric traditions, suddenly everyone in the country was seen as barbaric and in need of saving. "Civilized" cultures/people should have been given the choice to convert rather than being forced to convert to Christianity.
ReplyDeleteYeah I agree with Lindsey on the fact that Europeans shouldn't have forcefully changed the foreigner's religion and that they should have kept an open mind about new religion and just try to learn of other culture so they can gain and give new knowledge to others around them, giving everyone in a colony a good idea of what everyone is like. Maybe if there had been a listener or two, England would have been such a more diverse and intelligent country.
ReplyDelete