Colonialism, experienced through the lens of architecture, has many layers that span multidimensional contexts. The hybrid formation of the built environment in post-colonial places can be understood through various aspects, including cultural and sociological factors. The religious and cultural beliefs of African peoples in their interior spaces were taken away by colonization. European colonial heritage re-appears in novel, critical, creative, and affectively engaging ways at the level of diverse cityscapes.
During the colonial era, neoclassicism reigned supreme in Europe, and with rapid colonization, it quickly spread around the world. Missionaries and traders introduced new materials, such as glass and ceramics, and styles to Oceania’s interior design. A shift towards analyzing postcolonial architecture and design offers in-depth insights into the profound effects of colonialism on the built environment across a wide variety of contexts.
Repeated contestations for Indigenous land rights in North America suggest that settler-colonial contexts present a distinct and pressing concern for decolonization. The landscapes of colonialism are evident in the availability of green spaces and how they are managed. Colonial interior design emphasizes symmetry and balance, with rooms often arranged in a formal layout.
The earliest examples of colonial architecture in the US date back to 1626, and the French colonial period affected the architecture and urban planning of Lebanon and Beirut. British Colonial style is relaxed, genteel, and travelled, pairing dark-stained rattan, timber, and bamboo furniture with pure white linens and an abundance of windows.
📹 This is what they don’t teach you about colonization
Thomas Sowell is an American economist and political commentator. He taught economics at Cornell University, the University of …
What were the effects of internal colonialism?
Internal colonialism can be defined as the practice of states colonizing specific regions for the benefit of others, which can result in economic imbalances and potential class-based and ethnic conflicts within the state.
What impact did colonialism have on architecture?
The colonial legacy of European powers has been a significant aspect of architectural history, as they imposed Western architectural styles and planning practices on colonized societies. This led to the analysis of colonial architecture as a tool for political and economic authority, focusing on identity. Modernism was not simply imported into colonial contexts but was forged within them. For example, in India, architecture reflects a blend of European stylistic practices and Indian spatial traditions, with the Indo-Saracenic style, introduced as a colonial variant of High Victorian Gothic, exemplifying this fusion.
Buildings with ornamental motifs borrowed from Mughal and Rajput architecture often followed European organizational principles. Despite the grand palatial settings, there is a growing awareness of the complex dynamics of power and cultural exchange embedded within colonial architecture. The ongoing reevaluation of colonial architectural legacies emphasizes the need to critically examine the layered narratives and historical contexts they embody.
How has colonialism impacted design?
The colonial impact on indigenous cultural heritage has been significant, erasing many indigenous building techniques and architectural heritage. While some aspects of indigenous architecture were incorporated into colonial styles, the overall effect was to devalue the fundamental principles of traditional indigenous design. Indigenous communities were often subjected to forced labor and robbed of their cultural identity, leading to the suppression of traditional building techniques and the promotion of colonial styles.
Architects were encouraged to adopt Western styles, marginalizing indigenous communities and their architectural heritage. Despite these challenges, there is a growing recognition of the importance of preserving architectural heritage and traditional building techniques. Efforts to promote decolonization in architecture have gained traction, with architects and designers working alongside indigenous communities to ensure the preservation of traditional indigenous design principles for future generations.
How has colonialism affected the environment?
The term “desertification” was coined by French colonizers in the late 19th century to describe the environmental degradation caused by the forced removal of forests from rural communities in North and West Africa. This led to the loss of vegetation and moisture in the soils, which led to the development of cotton plantations and cash crops. The colonizers blamed the land management practices of migratory tribes and other Indigenous people for the degradation. However, the Indigenous way of life does not align with the Western-imposed private property and cash crop farming practices.
What is an example of internal colonialism?
Internal colonialism refers to the state’s exploitation and oppression of peoples and regions within their own borders, similar to how European colonial powers used to exploit foreign colonies. This phenomenon is evident in countries like Sri Lanka, where many Third World peoples have traded one set of oppressors (white) for another (brown and black) after independence. Many Third World states, often the direct or indirect result of national liberation wars themselves, are now fighting against national liberation movements within their borders.
Despite the withdrawal of colonial power from Third World countries, forms of colonial oppression still persist in many of them, resulting from nationalist governments that fail to respect the rights of indigenous minorities. For ethnic and regional minorities, the arrogance and injustice of these governments match or often exceed those of the departed European colonial regime. Sri Lanka presents a case in point, as little public investment appears to reach the Tamil lands.
In the early 20th century, the Siamese Empire transformed into a unitary modern nation-state by abolishing the vassal status of vassal states, incorporating them into Siam, and assimilating their cultures through Thaifcation. There is a posited link between internal colonialism and ethnic rebellion in Thailand.
How did colonization shape the environment?
The history of colonization has had a devastating impact on the social, economic, political, and environmental structures of post-colonial societies. It directly affects the environment through the exploitation of natural resources, leading to degradation. However, colonial legacies also affect the environment through pathways of disenfranchisement, such as economic disparities, social inequalities, and political turmoil. This thesis explores the potential ways in which variations in colonization may influence current environmental conditions and environmental concern in former colonies.
It examines 77 case countries with varying histories of colonization, 19 of which have never been colonized. The thesis finds that colonized countries have lower levels of income equality, weaker governance structures, and worse environmental conditions today than those that have not been colonized. Colonial legacies can affect environmental conditions directly and through current governance structures and income equality levels. These legacies will continue to affect structural and environmental outcomes in modern society until we actively address them in our environmental and equity solutions.
What is an example of colonialism AP Human Geography?
Indochina, also known as French Indochina, was a colonial possession of the French Empire until World War II. It was conquered by Japan during the war but returned to France after the war. The Atlantic Triangular Trade of the 17th and 18th centuries involved the transportation of trinkets, slaves, molasses, and rum from Europe to Africa, America, and Europe. However, tobacco was transported from the Americas, particularly from the American colonies, to Europe. The attempt by one country to impose political control over another is known as a “political coup”.
What are the colonial influences on architecture?
Colonial architecture, a reflection of European colonialism, is a blend of Gothic, Renaissance, Baroque, Neoclassical, and Modernist styles. These landmarks, each reflecting a unique cultural context, attract millions of visitors and serve as historical and cultural icons. They remind us of colonialism and encourage contemplation. If you want to create architectural marvels like these, Novatr’s Master Computational Design Course offers a unique opportunity to learn industrial practices, advanced tools, and computational theory. This course combines traditional beauty with modern efficiency and precision, allowing you to visualize and design iconic structures.
What are the five negative effects of colonialism?
The Durban Declaration and Programme of Action highlight the harmful effects of colonialism, including environmental degradation, economic underdevelopment, racial profiling, systemic racism, and poor social infrastructure. These issues have led to unequal access to healthcare, education, and social justice. The Declaration acknowledges the racial discrimination, xenophobia, and intolerance that Africans, people of African descent, Asian descent, and indigenous peoples have suffered from. Shepherd urges former colonial powers to address these injustices and engage in reparatory justice conversations with former colonies.
What are three colonialism impacts?
The legacy of colonialism, frequently characterized by coercion and forced assimilation, has left a profound and enduring imprint on the colonized populations. This includes, but is not limited to, environmental degradation, disease transmission, economic instability, ethnic conflicts, and human rights violations. In his analysis of the historical impact of colonialism in South Asia, historian John McQuade challenges the assertion that colonialism was a uniformly detrimental force for the colonized. He argues that this view relies on a selective interpretation of historical evidence.
What are 3 impacts of Colonisation?
Australia’s history of colonisation has significantly impacted the health of Australia’s First Peoples, resulting in inequity, racism, and disruption of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures. The legal fiction of terra nullius, which allowed the dispossession of Aboriginal lands, has been a significant determinant of health. In 1788, the first British fleet entered the coastline of Warrange, now Sydney, with an estimated Indigenous population of 750, 000 people. This legal fiction continues to significantly influence Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health outcomes today.
📹 Marginal Interiors: Architecture, Space, and Governance in the Colonial Indian Mufassal
A CASI Virtual Seminar with Tania Sengupta in partnership with the South Asia Center March 24, 2022 About the Seminar: This …
This is basically the point Monty Python makes in Life of Brian in the scene where Reg asks about what the Romans have ever done for them, and the others keep naming things that the Romans have massively improved in their daily lives. “All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?”
Another thing they don’t teach is that the native tribes themselves warred and enslaved each other. In the Philippines, there was already a slave class long before the Spaniards came, and the slave class usually were either the clans that lost a local conflict, or people who could not repay their debt and hence had to pay through serving the creditor.
Colonisation is still going on, but there are no economic benefits in what is happening today. It was not the act of colonisation that brought benefits in the past, it was the spread of a successful civilisation. We now have weak borders, allowing failed cultures to overrun successful civilisations. This is a global catastrophe unfolding.
What is true for britain and europe may not be true for other parts of the world. For example, India, India’s contribution to world GDP before brits arrived : 25 % ( also the India was the richest country of the world for 1600 years by then, the longest for ANY country ever, the record still stands ). After brits left : 2% Famines in India in the 2000 years before brits arrived : 17 Famines that occurred under british rule of 200 years : around 25 Here’s a list of some of them : The British era is significant because during this period a very large number of famines struck India. There is a vast literature on the famines in colonial British India. The mortality in these famines was excessively high and in many cases it has been increased by British policies. The mortality in the Great Bengal famine of 1770 was between one and 10 million; the Chalisa famine of 1783–1784, 11 million; Doji bara famine of 1791–1792, 11 million; and Agra famine of 1837–1838, 800,000. In the second half of the 19th-century large-scale excess mortality was caused by: Upper Doab famine of 1860–1861, 2 million; Great Famine of 1876–1878, 5.5 million; Indian famine of 1896–1897, 5 million; and Indian famine of 1899–1900, 1 million. The first major famine of the 20th century was the Bengal famine of 1943, which affected the Bengal region during wartime; it was one of the major South Asian famines in which anywhere between 1.5 million and 3 million people died. The total number of people who died because of this Famines alone and in India alone goes over tens of millions of people.
I agree with his take on being culturally and economically advanced because of colonialism. Yet most of the third world poverty is by taking precious natural resources that could have been used for trade in the global market. The Europeans took anything valuable and all the countries that conquered are economically stable. England, Spain, France, Belgium, Netherlands, and Italy are far better off than the rest of the world. While Sweden, Finland and Iceland are good because of their Viking conquests. Africa is extremely unstable in some of its countries because of now companies taking their precious resources.
What he says about Britain is wrong. The English weren’t superior over the Scots because of the Roman occupation but because of the Germanic conquest from the continent (that’s why they’re called Anglo-Saxons). The “English” during Roman times weren’t English but Celts (Britons), just like the Scots.
Age of Colonization? Which one? Colonization has existed since the beginning of humanity and it still exists today, which is why it can never define just one era, not just one country or just one continent. What colonization? The Arab between the 7th and 8th centuries, when the Islamic Empire reached its greatest territorial extension, covering lands from Central Asia to the Iberian Peninsula, passing through North Africa? Or the Mongolian? The Roman? Germany? The Chinese? India? Turkish? The Current one, of Israel on the Palestinian territories, of the American colonization, of Hawaii, of Texas, or of the contemporary Russian colonization of Ukraine? The Age of Discovery, Global Expansion, Intercontinental Knowledge, or World Culture made the unknown world become known, new cultures, peoples and new knowledge become known. Humans from all parts of the planet finally came into contact and expanded human wisdom as never before. The discovery of new plants, crops and foods, revolutionized human life. The introduction of new foodstuffs, such as potatoes and maize, allowed Europe to greatly increase the quantity and variety of food available, and more than that, they came to replace the limited European diet, conditioned by a small variety of crops, which were destroyed constantly, causing shortages and the countless famines that prevailed in the history of Europe, devastating populations and preventing population growth. Most of the European population was peasants, they lived only to get food and survive until adulthood.
Thomas Sowell doesn’t tethered his thoughts to his identity – he tethers them to historical facts. I was born Catholic of Irish descent. I have always said, I am grateful the Brits colonized most of North America instead of the Spaniards. South America and Central America have never freed themselves form the oligarchy mindset imported by Spanish Catholics. This despite abundant natural resources, strong work ethics and a large segment of well educated population.
Sorry to burst anyone’s bubble, but much of what this man says is simply, factually, untrue. The countries which were not colonised are NOT “universally less advanced” than those that were. The few uncolonised countries on Earth include China, Japan, South Korea and Thailand. The only poor uncolonised nations I can think of are Ethiopia and Mongolia. The rest of subsaharan Africa remains extremely poor compared to the other continents. He’s using lies to spread a pseudointellectual narrative that colonialism was ultimately a good thing for the colonised and they ought to be greatful.
In1848 Mexico ceded almost the entire America southwest to the United States in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. General Santa Ana was paid 1,000,000 dollars. Today many Mexicans say, probably the majority, that it would have been better if Santa Ana had “sold” all of Mexico to the United States at that time. They laugh when they say it, but, at the same time, they’re dead serious.
Lol. Wait what??? Egypt was prosperous before white colonialism. They resin why those parts that aren’t prosperous is due to economic suffocation. This is a lie. Much of what Europe got including The king and queen practices came out of Africa especially places of old kemet where they had kings and queens
As a Nola Creole we were literate and had trade skills at a high functional level when we were in the French Territory of Louisiana before we were annexed to the USA. We learned this by our french slave roots in the Carribean. We also had given up Voodo and were Catholic. We also had strong families and raised any of our iligitimate children.
Great vid, thanks. One small, yet very important and hopefully educational correction: Poland was part of the Eastern Block between 1945 and 1989, but is located in the heart of Europe and is therefore considered to be part of Central Europe (think: is Chicago an Eastern American city?) Another great difference between Eastern Europe and Poland is religion (Poland is Roman-Catholic, similar to Western Europe, and not Eastern Orthodox, as found in Eastern Europe), as well as culture in general. This is a common mistake and oversimplification made by people in the US, but it should be pointed out and corrected (I am baffled to find it on this website). Thanks.
Regardless of the advancements that colonialism brought to conquered people’s, we must acknowledge that these advancements were brought on at the cost of the conquered people’s freedom. Also, the main reason for poverty in colonized nations was due to the fact that the resource wealth of that nation went to the ruling nation and not the natives. This is the main source of poverty.
Imagine Academia making Thomas Sowell books and thought a mandatory part of the syllabus on the topics he has chosen to write about!! Not only would the world become better educated. It would become more civilised, more inquisitive, and hungrier for facts and learning. And what’s more, for the Woke Social Justice warriors constantly preaching about a world they hate being dominated by ‘White Old Pale and Stale Men’, here is the perfect man to address that argument – and show conclusively that the system and culture we live in can be served, brilliantly so, by people willing and able to be a part of it, irrespective of race or ethnicity. I salute and bow to Thomas Sowell for the multitude of benefits he has brought to our Western society. Thank you. A genius and a gentleman.
There’s some inaccuracies here when it comes to England. Mainly, the UK post-Roman Empire and pre-England was a hot mess of warfare, betrayal and oppression. Multiple factions were subservient to one another and played against each other. To go further: the Normans conquered and shaped the UK to what we know of it in Medieval Times.
My goodness. So, the Belgian Congo became “prosperous” because of 80 years of systematically stripping them of wealth? Who knew? When they left in 1960 there were (Count them) over a Dozen college graduates!! If only Ebony knew what a paradise the Belgians left the Congo no doubt they’d salute Mr. Sowell.
well, a question might be also, even if a country is more successful, does a country want to retain its own culture and it s own identity…and be somewhat poorer etc…because that is another question also. i see what he means, if and, if also a country that comes in, has a strong capitalist way…and in such, the standard of living may be stronger. however, many countires want their culture and their own identity …. what country really wants to…be invaded per se….put another way, napoleon, or so i ve heard, was somewhat advanced, in some ways…however, do you want your country invaded by napoleon…i don t know, does that make any sense. ?
As an American with Central American parents, I just have to say that we exist, for better and worse, because of colonization. Without the Spanish Empire, our culture, genetics and traditions, would not exist as it does today. I am literally 39% Spanish according to 23&me, not to mention that the small amount of African DNA and culture that exists in Guatemala and El Salvador wouldn’t exist had Castile and Aragon not united to create Spain and hadn’t commissioned exploration. Without all of it, we would be wildly different people. (And pre-colonial Mayans weren’t cannibals or anything, but they did heavily exploit the local environment and resources and war against each other constantly).
Eventhough i agree with the overall message of this article, it was brought across with wrong examples. The Kingdom of Poland and the slavic ruling dinasty was a bastion of culture and development on its own. The Balkans were not a black hole as well. Eastern Europe and especially the balkans are less developed because of ottoman and mongol intervention.
Thank goodness Rome colonised my scottish, english and german ancestors. Now I don’t just eat grass and get killed by the neighbour for my wife. Also, I don’t want any compensation. Just saying. Colonisation does often bring education and skills. Sometimes better law systems. Science, maths. Higher ways of thinking. The arts. Infrastructure. Sometimes even freedoms. Its not just all bad, sorry. It just isn’t.
I get what he’s trying to say. Colonialism brought technology, knowledge and the keys to power to the conquered. But I think he’s missing the parts where the indigenous people were robbed and enslaved. The culture was erased etc. I don’t think the First Nation’s people are better off now after having been conquered by manifest destiny. (Indian Casinos notwithstanding.) India is another example where this notion of colonialism being a good thing seems suspect. The British were very good at stealing whatever wealth they could while they were in power. They still hold much of the riches and jewels to this day. So, sure colonialism brought changes that in the end were positive but the costs, for some, was near eradication off the planet.
holy shit, he’s literally defending imperialism. and the only reason we shouldn’t do it more openly is because it would be “politically impossible”?? what a psychotic take. and he defends poverty and exploitation by pointing to “economic development” while completely ignoring the needless human suffering caused by capitalist imperialism. another profoundly uncritical and ahistorical take.
Or perhaps England is at the “crossroads” of very successful maritime roads (Antwerp/Rotterdam), and Scotland is in the North of nowhere. Otherwise how would you explain Sicily, Southern Italy, Southern Spain. Places and countries that have prospered are mainly to do with trade routes, creating cultural exchanges as well, thus progression.
Heres the problem with his answer. He doesnt define “prosperous” and “cultural progress.” More recoginized currency, international trade, and technology does not necessarily equal prosperity and cultural progress. I’d argue that in most cases in Africa and Native America, colonization created the West’s idea of prosperity and progress, but came at the expense of what the natives considered prosperity and progress. Who gets to define those things? Is prosperity only monetary? Is there an objective standard for cultural progress? His answer assumes the modern West’s definitions are representative of all people’s, but they’re not.
I agree with Thomas Sowell, Africa was conquered by the West and many of those countries then prospered but if you look at them today after the colonist handed back those countries, they all went backwards. They all, every single country in Africa, would rather blame the colonist for the state of their countries in stead of taking what was given and improve on it.
As an economist, I rather surprised Dr. Sowell didn’t take “colonialism” to its logical roots. The more interesting question is this: Why did some civilizations found colonies, while others did not? What was the object? Colonization is in fact very old. It goes back to the dawn of history with the Minoans and Assyrians and the ancient Chinese and continues unabated to our own day in a slightly different form, as American corporations and Chinese moguls today try to “colonize” foreign markets. It is all based on capitalism, the ability to use excess wealth to create more wealth, and the process benefits all. Of course, it wasn’t called “capitalism” in ancient times, but the result was the same. Trade has always been the vanguard of civilization, bringing new ideas and technologies to less developed peoples and improving their lives, even when sometimes exploiting them as well. Capitalism has been a force for the collective good, even in its least enlightened moments, such as the conquest of Central and South America by Spain and Portugal, which lamentably destroyed Stone Age cultures, but introduced the natives to modern civilization and ended pagan rituals, such as sacrificing human beings to the gods. And in every era, the colonizers eventually settled among the exploited peoples and improved their lot. Whether in South America, in England, in Italy, in India, the result was the same. The notion that colonization is synonymous with exploitation simply ignores a host of contrary facts.
The problem with sowell is that he describes American slavery to all slavery in terms of economics. He doesn’t compare or explains the differences in the types of slavery (example: Roman vs American). Slavery is slavery no matter how you put it, but there is a difference when comparing slavery through out history.
This man and those like him have been around since 1619. “Hey, if your country benefits from oppressing you, and your descendants will still suffer even though the country benefitted from your oppression, and they can hide behind the false claim that what happened in history has no impact on the present descendants of the oppressed, and the oppressor can then blame the victims for their own squalor, then rejoice! What matters more than country?”
As an historian with a PhD in Imperial and Colonial History, I can tell you that he is simply factually wrong. His assertion that Scotland was economically and socially behind England, for example, is demonstrably false. Scotland comprises less than 1 percent of the world’s population but has produced the winners of 33 percent of all Nobel Prizes for science and economics. Scotland at the time he is calling it backward was, in easily verifiable fact, the world leader in the advancement of science and medicine.
I remember learning about this in school. If a school doesn’t teach it’s students the full spectrum, with regards to their mental capacity, then it failed as an education. (There’s no reason to teach 7 yr olds about the Black Death.) Anyone who graduated high school should know all about colonialism, with some developments in college.
I disagree with what he says, many African countries suffered a big set back thanks to colonialism, and continues to suffer even after the so called independence because of the policies implemented by the colonial powers. Going back to his example of England, his words can easily be refuted by simple student of history, you don’t even need a historian. The Romans left in the fifth century, after them came the Saxons, the Normans, and vikings not to mention the Celtics who were there all along. It seems to me that he does things backwards, he decides on idea and looks for any superficial thing to confirms his convictions
Can anyone show me what benefits colonization brought to the indigenous peoples of North America? Some say the indigenous population between 1500 and 1900 dropped some 85%. Even today, life on reservations has third world conditions in stark contrast to prosperity in the non-indigenous areas. The same question could be asked of colonization in Australia and New Zealand. Tell me how the live of natives there are better than they were before Europeans arrived.
Western individuals and society have prejudices or a negative view of non-Westerners. These prejudices can lead to prejudicial attitudes, discrimination and marginalization of non-Westerners. They refuse to change because they have created prejudices to justify their own superiority and maintain their position of power in society. Prejudice against non-Westerners can be due to several factors, such as the history of colonialism and the Western dominance of global resources and political influence. This dominance has facilitated stereotypes and generalizations about non-Westerners as “exotic”, “backward” or “dangerous”. These prejudices and stereotypes contribute to creating and maintaining a hierarchical power structure where Westerners are seen as superior and superior. These prejudices can lead to discrimination in various areas of society, such as the labor market, the housing market and the education system. Non-Westerners may be denied job opportunities, be subjected to racial profiling by the police, or have difficulty finding decent housing. These experiences can also lead to social and economic marginalization, reinforcing the negative stereotypes and prejudices even more. In order to overcome these prejudices and create a more just and equal social structure, there needs to be awareness raising and education about the problems that prejudice and discrimination create. It also requires that individuals and society as a whole challenge and question their own prejudices and stereotypes, and actively work to create inclusive and just social conditions.
There’s a difference between colonialism and imperialism. Colonialism will give economic benefits only a certain groups groomed for that benefit. The rest get brutal capitalism. American imperialism is mainly a dominating military campaign that doesn’t offer much or any benefits to the country citizens economically.
Majority of the people in this comment section have not even felt the real effects of colonization or racial segregation. I honestly feel Sowells point of view is not as practical and that he is deeply embedded in the white society even though he is black. I refuse to litsen to his ‘logic’ when he has nof witnessed first hand the effects of white supremacy and most importantly as a man who does not know where he really comes from.
i have sort of been making that same argument to people since i was in high school in the 80s. as a white man in America now having to constantly hear about hoe someone like me oppressed Black Americans and Native Americans and so on, and i always just think how would people look upon me upon us if white people of English descent sat around moaning endlessly still about how the Romans conquered us and stole our land and eradicated our ancient cultures and religions. will there ever be a point in America where people get over that stuff and move on. where they in fact appreciate what those conquests have done for them, from when their ancestors just a few generations ago were living in the god damn stone age. and now they have the luxury of sitting around all day getting fat perusal Anime and playing article games while eating fast food. oh the horror.
when the British colonized India the Mughal empire, the ruling dynasty in India accounted for 30 % of the international GDP……..by the time they left it was less than 1%…….this was because of many British policies……and spending tax collected in India abroad……even though there was net development in India….but what once used to be a superpower was left as a husk of what it used to be…..
Thomas is intelligent but also does not know everything. When Scotland was not colonised by the Romans, the Romans then tried their utmost to prevent Scotland from progressing/ strengthening or even for people to have basic lives. When the English invaded, they also used the same methodology. Even today, England gives Scotland some freedom, but not enough to break away and challenge England for prosperity. One rich thief tries hard to get richer and tries equally hard to prevent the neighbour from getting richer than them. We see this on a global scale- France and UK get on, but the UK does not want its economy to fall behind the French economy, even if it takes conflict. Similarly the USA has been savage in its actions against middle east and Chinese development.
He leaves out one very important thing: When you imperialize, taking control of a country’s government primarily for the purpose of industrializing their economy, and then leave, this is the result: You have gone to a place where people were never wealthy enough to be worth exploiting, where people are not used to dealing with corruption because greedy people preferred wealthier places, and you have turned it into a place that now has an economy worth exploiting, but with no experience at defending against exploitation, and after leaving you have a power vacuum that is quickly filled by the people with the greatest lust for power, as good people usually do not seize power the moment an opportunity becomes available. Foreigners are able to funnel billions towards exploiting a place they otherwise wouldn’t have glanced at, and while the people there might be making more money, prices go up faster and they end up being less able to afford a house and food. Their economy appears to be doing great because more money is being spent and more products are being exported, but the people are working harder, affording less, losing their culture, and ending up unhappy. Some people just don’t understand that people who are used to it would be happier living in a simple home they build themselves, growing the food they eat, and having no modern troubles to stress about, because they can’t crave things that they’ve never gotten used to in the first place. Modern products are like drugs (and some of them literally are drugs); you don’t need them to be happy if you’ve never had them before, and once you’ve had them long enough to get used to them, they don’t make you happy anymore, they just make you normal, and you get to the point where you need them just to not feel unhappy.
Mr. Sowell seems not to consider that colonization has many different faces. To defend colonization as some sort of a moral action towards creating wealth and helping poverty is incredibly historically ignorant. Colonization is associated with oppression for good reason. It’s not like the historical “Rape of Africa” was named so for the purpose of bringing wealth and opportunity to Africans. It’s simply prioritizing power, exploitation, and incredible wealth for the rulers. Sowell seems to only want to focus on the fact that when the big kids finally stop harassing and leave the little kid pen, that they leave some of their toys for the little kids to play with. To justify colonization over the indifference of whether or not societies and cultures were destroyed, lost, and subjugated against is an incredibly greedy and non-human-centered approach to understanding history.
Thank you Dr. Sowell and this website. It’s popular to vilify every act and every example of colonialism. The fact of the matter is, there are benefits to Colonialism. That is not to say that people didn’t suffer under colonialism. Some people suffer every day. Let’s send everyone everywhere peace, love abundance and protection now and always.
This brilliant man is getting old now and in a few short years we will lose this fine mind just at the time we really need people like him. We must preserve his informed wisdom and spread the word in order to counter the corrupt Doublethink of Leftist identity politics and historical revisionism. Good luck to all you free thinkers out there. You will need it.
“And Scotland finally developed only after England conquered Scoltand…” 😂 Is that the 1296 “conquest”? Western Europeans already had written versions of their languages before the arrival of the Romans. For example the Gauls used the Greek alphabet. Germanic languages had Futhark. Irish and Picts had Ogham, places the Romans never reached.
I have witnessed a real life short term of “colonialism” in Thailand over only 20 years. As we retired to rural villages we were welcomed. The changes were astounding as they welcomed our influence in architecture, agriculture, medicine, refrigeration animal husbandry and all other aspects of day to day life. Since improvements were voluntary our presence in communities is cherished. We did what colonialism did.
Absolutely, completely admire this man! He really drives home the importance of taking responsibility for ones own actions and behavior. I respect his well thought put perspective on racism, victm hood, negative reinforcement on a community scale . His views on single parent/ broken home family are spot on, and it can be said for whatever race/ skin color you are. It really pisses me off to here people call him a sell out or uncle Tom etc. simply for being educated, articulate and honest. He speaks honestly about what he says are detrimental issues that continue to be reinforced in communities seemingly for the sake of culture? yet seem to be at the very heart of what holds everything back when it comes to long term success! This man is dope!!! He definitely has my respect and esteem!!!!! someone this smart and intuitive who obviously cares about his people, enough so that he seems to have devoted considerable time and effort pin pointing cultural achilles heels as well as the remedies. I come from a culture plagued with slot of the same problems, as well as the same old excuses! This man is definitely one of my heroes!!
First things first, England never conquered Scotland, there were two periods of occupation in the late 13th & early 14th century with Longshanks Edward the 1st. Then under Cromwell & the Commonwealth which agin was brief & that later after the unification of the crowns under King Jame the 6th of Scotland who also came James the 1st of England. Scotland was never a conquered nation, unlike the English by the Normans.Thomas Sowell is a brilliant man but his knowledge of ancient Scotland is poor. The English didn’t exist on the island of Britain when the Romans were there, the Britons were actually the Welsh who had land as far as what is now Glasgow in west central Scotland, that is between the Clyde & the Forth estuary. The Scots started arriving from the north of Ireland into what the Romans called Caledonia & was named Scotland later in the later English language. The Scottish Gaelic (Galik) for Scotland is Alba pronounced Alapa, the main peoples of Caledonia as the Romans called Scotia were the Picts who would have spoken a brythonic Welsh language. Therefore I have to disagree with Professor Sowell on his view, the Germanic English already had their own forms of society & rulings that they brought over from the Germanic lands. England became truly defined after the Norman conquest & that impacted ultimately on Scotland & completely on Wales. The Romans left Britain around 500 AD, just when the Romans had largely left, by the time of the Norman conquest of England in 1066 both Scotland & England were early nation state’s.
I love this sophisticated term in the long run I will use it on daily basis, If my car gets stolen -in the long run it will benefit me, will walk more, save money on gas and no more obsession with my car being stolen or being in the car accidents, my kids will benefit too, no more stupid car trips, in the long run they too will only benefit from it as will future next generations!!!
He missed the small part that 55 million people died as a result of establishing the “new world”, I mean, one Bengal famine alone killed 30 million, 5x the Holocaust, thanks to the British. But then again, he studied economics at Chicago under Stigler – so no surprises there (efficiency over ethics). The idea that Romans colonised England in the first century after Christ, which lead to economic prosperity of industrial revolution in 1760s over Scotland, will not only get you a zero in history or economics faculty, it is simply incorrect and not even plausable. But happy to test out his logical conclusions: given China is rising, perhaps they can colonise America to see if the citizens would thrive under slave labour conditions on production lines, and improve like China’s productivity. Any volunteers? lol
For the most part I like Thomas Sowell but would have to disagree with him here. The development of large civilizations are based upon avaliable resources, political stability and access to resources. The gauls had there own culture that was many ways superior to roman but sadly ended up in bondage to satisfy the Senate’s and aristocracys greed (the average pleb was worse off from romes expansion). Also, why did Rome invade England but not Scotland? Because the potential economic returns, Scotland has low output compared to England and and offered a challenge with the environmental to invade, the same with German compared to France. In the end, I think that slavery and exploitation of other lands is inherently wrong and whether there is a benefit with a bringing of number/writing systems is beside the point. Surely there is a way to share a culture and values without it being at the end of a musket.
Doesn’t make any sense. Colonization of India actually deindustrialized it and plunged it into poverty. Then came socialism which stagnated the economy in long run. British have a London because they remained competitive. When Romans left Roman Britain went back to its old Celtic ways. But later on the mixing of Anglo Saxon identity and connect with continental Europe ensured the competitive edge. Scotland was isolated but once it came into contact with English advancements they quickly rose up. Japanese didn’t get colonized… As usual their competitive spirit took to the introduction to the new world with passion.
We’re talking about colonialism purely in economic terms! It’s simply incredible! We don’t focus at all on the millions of people killed in the most barbaric ways, just because they were seen as lower on the evolutionary scale than beavers. The barbarians who needed to be civilized were the Europeans, not the indigenous tribes or the Africans kidnapped and transported across the ocean in inhumane conditions, bound and stored in spaces smaller than coffins, to give their lives for holy profit.
What a lot of rubbish that the countries that were colonised are prosperous. In Inglorious Empire: What the British Did to India Sashi Tahroor rebuts this nonsense by telling the real story of the British in India — from the arrival of the East India Company to the end of the Raj — and reveals how Britain’s rise was built upon its plunder of India. In the eighteenth century, India’s share of the world economy was as large as Europe’s. By 1947, after two centuries of British rule, it had decreased six-fold. Beyond conquest and deception, the Empire blew rebels from cannon, massacred unarmed protesters, entrenched institutionalised racism, and caused millions to die from starvation. Shashi Tharoor demonstres how every supposed imperial ‘gift’ — from the railways to the rule of law — was designed in Britain’s interests alone. He goes on to show how Britain’s Industrial Revolution was founded on India’s deindustrialisation, and the destruction of its textile industry.Charting India’s precipitous economic decline under the Raj, he writes: “India was governed for the benefit of Britain. Britain’s rise for 200 years was financed by its depredations in India.” Tharoor delights in using the Brits themselves to support his arguments. Thus, one official of the East India Company, considering his own good fortune, reflects: “The Englishman flourishes, and acts like a sponge, drawing up riches from the banks of the Ganges, and squeezing them down upon the banks of the Thames.” So much for the “civilising mission” of imperial rule.
Thomas Sowell says that the poorest countries in the world are those that were never colonized. Not true. The following is a list of the 10 poorest countries in the world, each with their colonial master(s): Burundi – Germany/Belgium, South Sudan – United Kingdom, Malawi – United Kingdom, Mozambique – Portugal, Democratic Republic of Congo – Belgium, Central African Republic – France, Afghanistan – United Kingdom/Soviet Union/United States, Madagascar – France, Sierra Leone – United Kingdom, Niger Republic – France. We may also mention the Australian Aborigines, Canadian First Nations, and American Indians. While we may accept that colonialization brought some measure of “civilization” to these less advanced cultures, the exploitation, misery and ruination it brought far outweigh the “benefits”. Sowell is in bed intellectually with white people who seek to escape guilt by association for the atrocious behavior of their forebears. They did not do it, but they are the beneficiaries of injustice. Thomas – his name suits him well. Uncle Tom. Like Clarence Thomas. He joins an ignoble list of people who pitched their tent with the oppressors in exchange for crumbs from the table. Like Philippe Pétain’s Vichy France, Norway’s Vidkun Quisling and other collaborators with their oppressors. That is why you will never find him on a list of Black intellectuals. He is clearly a clever man. But so are many who work for the oppressor. You want the truth about what colonialism wrought in the affected countries?
Lies – colonialism has completely devastated the Muslim world. An area traditionally associated with morality, high ethics and enlightenment etc has been reduced to fascism and barbarity as a deliberate policy of the colonialist project there. This was designed to reduce Islam to a compliant and subservient role so that it did not interfere with secularism. What we have witnessed, however, is, despite the progress in technological terms – which would have happened anyway through normal development and adoption under the natural impetus of the outside world – a never ending series of fascist dictatorships, perennial wars, continuous conflict and overriding oppression, particularly the imposition of the occupation of Palestine by that settler apparteid state Israel. Dr Sowell should know better but is talking out of his rear end in this case, for sure.
I think this too simplistic in explaining complex situations, it is not accident why the rest of Europe fight each other viciously to prevent others European from colonising them, and more vicious when it come to others for instance Europe fight so hard to prevent Muslims from advancing to Europe hence been colonised. We have two world wars fight among the European preventing other Europeans from colonising them, namely Germany. And later on Japan, even to the point of experiencing the most devastating casualties of atomic war, one of it kinds, just to stop their imperial ambitions. I haven’t mentioned Russia yet. Dr. Sowell himself doesn’t speak kindly of Russia and their imperial ambitions. As an African who grew up in Africa and his father accounting the colonial experiences it is insulting to speak of issues like this. It’s much more complicated than his analysis. people may point out about the fact he has highlighted here, which are indeed fact, but there is more into it than that. Someone doesn’t leave their house to go build someone else’s house. Especially if that person have not respect for the person their engaging with.
One thing is that i think is true is culture breeds success look at the accomplishments of jewish people. We see now with the rise of Atheism one thing we are moving away from faith towards reason like what lead to the renaissance this now is not the case we need faith and reason to lead to human progress.🇬🇧
Both things can be true. No matter your circumstance, the acquisition of skills and consistent self discipline will lead to upward mobility. At the same time, there have been laws and illegal business practices that disenfranchise specific people groups. I respect Mr. Sowell but he definitely has a slant and downplays the impact of institutional oppression.
What does colonization have to do with what we are doing to ourselves today? NOTHING! So why is it that we keep concentrating on this past? The reality is that continuing to try to concentrate on the past as the blame for our present and future is the same as a 45 year old person trying to blame what they are today on their parents. Wake up and take responsibility for yourself and what you made of yourself, your parents only got you to the point that you could have control over what you want to be, and that is called the maturation process that makes all of us adults!
What about India? The richest country in the world before colonization, and a third-world country by the time the empire were through with them. And his take on corporations as a source of net benefit to local economies, rather than say multinational parasites who are accountable and beholden to no-one. Makes you wonder if big business really has infiltrated ivy league economics departments?
Check out the book “Inglorious Empire” by Shashi Tharoor to hear exactly how colonialism ruined and impoverished India’s domestic economy and turned it into the quintessential example of the cheap labor, poor infrastructure, politically corrupt nation we all think of when we hear the name “India” today. This is the more rarely seen other response to racism: deny or minimize it to the extent that you can avoid having to deal with it. It’s the opposite of the more common response of taking pride in your racial identity as a way of legitimizing your existence in the face of a society that was built on the denial of the human dignity of people who look like you. The only people who buy into this argument are white people who like having a non-white person let them off the hook for benefitting from racism and other non-white people equally desperate to avoid having to deal with racism because they see admitting racism exists as a sign of moral weakness and feel ashamed their ancestors did not successfully resist colonialism.
Many people in places colonized by Europeans never learned the principals that made Europeans successful. Not because they’re stupid, because they’re not, but because of religion or tribal customs that discouraged emulating the “invaders.” The few that learned European ways got rich. Understanding “human capital” is not easy.
I mean, America was colonised, sure it’s on average got more wealth, but it’s not native America anymore, most of the American indigenous died, were subject to poor conditions, were enslaved, or otherwise given awful treatment, that isn’t development, it’s was only development for those who took over, and if you talk wealth people like black rock came and they were multimillionaires, so of course it’s gonna go up, and it’s not like colonial america was ever gonna count indigenous economy, in colonisation in terms of living standards where I look at it things just went down for places like Nigeria most jobs and development are for workers imported over to syphone resources and look at botswana, UK didn’t bother with it and it’s one of the strongest in terms of living standards and education in Africa, 16 years of education for most of the population is a great thing if it were battered more heavily they’d never have gotten that way
The irony in his comments is this: those that agree with him will tend to support collonialism ;). There are of course many western advantages to colonialism, but the very point being missed is this: who asked for it? What really would have been if the so called “3rd world” countries were left alone by Europeans from the beginning…then perhaps we would have a different model of civility. Also, the third world countries not part of colonialism…were very much affected by it. Where did Romans get their knowledge from…Greeks…Hindus…Silk Road Tribes…To not give credit to all that knowledge, and simply attribute it to colonial might and intellect is basically the problem all along. I am sure you have many supporters, and I am also sure most of them are Colonial sympathizers. Your observations are not incorrect, however I must disagree with the inferences you make, because we really don’t know what could have been. We only have the after math, and the world as it exists today is viewed mainly through the merits of colonialism. Even this YouTube website.
This is not as profound as your making it out to be. He is very specific with regards to the developments he refers to in Western Europe in relation to Eastern Europe, and Roman cultural, military and economic superiority within the European context. I’m not sure whether one can extrapolate this beyond the specific instances to which he refers.
The colonized countries that were ” better off” were those that had settler colonialists or sizeable “expat: communities. Also, that “better off” didn’t include the natives. Sowell tends to be popular overwhelmingly with colonial/Apartheid apologists, hence why he- like Clarence Thomas- is not embraced by people who look like him.
I have a pretty unique outlook!! From DNA and Genealogy I have learned I have a Grand Mother (MOM’s) who was born on the Chickasaw Reservation in Oklahoma in the 1880’s (I am 75) and on my Mom’s Fathers side a lone survivor of an Indian Massacre at Jamestown in 1643! I see “colonization” from both sides! MY VIEW??? If my Mom’s Father’s ancestors had not come here, we might be still making beads, slaughtering other Tribes (THEY wared a LOT!!!) and worshipping “Nature!” Thank GOD!!! for the colonists!
Those parts that imperialism didn’t touch, they become dependent on the areas that have been colonized. The people who became prosperous are people that were already rich or the imperialists themselves. I respect Mr Sowell he’s right in many things, but he’s almost ALWAYS wrong when it comes to foreign affairs.
I agree that a rural nation’s interaction with a more industrialized one transfers skills and technology. But it’s far more effective long-term when done through voluntary commerce rather than force. Case and point Europe, and US after the world wars, today’s Ethiopia, China, Israel and the Gulf States with America’s partnership. Colonialism did have a huge impact. By disrupting the social fabrics that are necessary to provide a political cohesion, that helps the economy grow peacefully and consistently. E.g, Cameroon, Congo, Nigeria, e.t.c Unfortunately,these countries have allowed their former colonizers to interfere in their politics. External, social, political and economic interference happens everywhere. There’s former CIA and KGB agents who’ve authored books on the methodology used during and after the cold war and their success. Countries like China, US, UK, and Russia fight this by developing their own political, technological and ideological countermeasures e.g espionage, propaganda e.t.c. That being said, ultimately the responsibility lies with Africa’s leadership. Their corruption, ignorance and mismanagement of resources has left their countries lagging and vulnerable. The world is a jungle.If you’re not strong, keen, strategic and cohesive, someone will take advantage. Moreover, the Asian tigers have recently proven that it is possible to rise and thrive after colonialism. Britain also experienced industrial revolution after being conquered multiple times by their European brothers.
People act as if imperialism is some evil, white European trait only. People have been conquering and exploiting other areas and people since the beginning of time. China, Japan, African countries conquering each other, we can go on and on. The Europeans were unique in that they were seafaring people and could colonize other continents.
I agree to disagree here ….. I come from India which used to be very rich before arrival of colonialism and even if colonial powers didn’t came we would have developed …. Look at countries like japan, china, Nepal who were never part of the colonialism ……. What British gave us was starvation, poverty, illiteracy when they left…..Japan which was a power empire which was able to preserve itself against european colonialism didn’t just transformed but also has able to preserve it’s culture to a quite good extent…. China transformed in 2-4 decades……Nepal is slowly but yet progressing and there culture has remained preserved….. What you sir are not taking into account is the spirit of a country .. which has a will relevant or irrelevant towards moving forward …. the thinkers, reformers and leaders which a country in itself produces and these people led them towards progression whether that progression is meaningful or not that’s a complete different debate…..
The subject of globalization in other countries in the short term does boost the local economy, but years later, when the companies leave the area, the inflation that is left behind actually hurts that community. I actually did a paper in regards to this topic while in college. The research showed that there were displaced workers from where the company originated and then again when the company left a country and went back to the originating region. However, when the company returns, the previous workers end up boycotting the company, and overall, the company and workers suffer. It was a very interesting subject.
British historian Angus Maddison showed India’s share of the world economy was 23%, as large as all of Europe, in the early 1700s. When the British left India, it was 3%. The historian Pattnaik and others have calculated that $45 trillion were taken out of India by the British between 1765 to 1938. Will Durrant wrote: the colonization of India is the greatest crime in history. Closer to home, 80 million natives lost their lives to the colonization of North and South America by Europeans. Tell us more about the redeeming qualities of colonization, Mr. Sowell.
Ahhh, let me say this on that… England never defeated Scotland ever! The Scottish Elite sold out and signed the Act of Union in 1777 AD! That was an agreed partnership so that the British Empire could then historically set about conquering the new world! Along with other competing Empires across Europe ! History is so important and deserves to be shared accurately if we are to learn from our past World History!
This man speaks some degree of facts. South Africa is by far better than many African countries, the whites that came to settle brought skills and a new way of doing things. Which in turn gave the rise of new industries. African black countries with less white people struggle the most. Victim mind sets makes people see colonialism from one perspective. 🇿🇦🇿🇦🇿🇦 Whites from Europe don’t believe in ancestors the way that Africans do, they have lived in a society that allowed science to become a norm. Very spot on Mr. This content is very empowering…Hopey fellow black South Africans ann Africans see it for what it is.
On the topic of colonialisation and poverty : This conversation covers economics only… What is missing is the parallel influence of government policies and laws…. Some valid points are sited in regards to some positive impacts of colonialisation in the form of multinational economics (talked about in this except) However, the negative effects of multinational economics, politics, and the legal system are completely ignored… So the assessment of the net influence of colonialisation is incomplete.
This is what they call being a book smart and street smart, living the experience and reading about the experience in books are totally different things . If this individual had traveled to those places he commented about, his results or findings would be totally different, poor Thomas ! Lift JG did he know
4:55 As a Polish person the description of Germans and Jews being historically majority in Polish cities is quite accurate. This actually highly impacted urbanization of especially Western Poland and development of local self-goverments in the 13th century. Interesting thing is that even in 19th-20th century in Silesia, which was not part of Poland since late middle ages and was part of Prussia since the 7 years war, before the world wars the majority of rular population was still Slavic while cities like Breslau were dominated by Germans. Thing worth adding is that Catholic Poles in turn became more developed majority in cities farther East like Lviv, Grodno, Vilnius, together with Polish Jews but very little Germans, while the rural population was native Ruthenian/Lithuanian, often Eastern Orthodox. This resulted in i.e. staunch defense of Polish population of Lviv against Ukrainian forces in 1918-19 or the Żeligowski’s Mutiny in case of Vilnius.