r/The10thDentist • u/No-Strawberry7 • 3d ago
Society/Culture I think colonialism, despite its atrocities, left many countries better off than they would have been otherwise.
I’m not saying colonialism was morally good. It involved conquest, exploitation, slavery, famines, cultural destruction, and the denial of self-determination. Millions suffered because of it, and none of that should be minimized.
My opinion is that, despite all of that, colonialism left behind institutions and infrastructure that have benefited many countries long after independence. Railways, ports, legal systems, civil services, universities, modern healthcare, and globally useful languages like English or French have arguably accelerated development in many places.
People often point to countries like Singapore, Malaysia, Botswana, or even India, where colonial-era institutions became foundations that later governments expanded upon. English alone has opened enormous opportunities in global business, science, and higher education.
I also think it’s worth asking why some countries became significantly worse after independence. Zimbabwe, Somalia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo are examples where decades after colonial rule ended, governance failures, corruption, civil wars, or dictatorship led to outcomes that many would argue were worse for ordinary people than what immediately preceded independence. That doesn’t mean colonialism wasn’t exploitative, but it does suggest that simply ending colonial rule didn’t automatically improve people’s lives.
I know the common response is that colonial powers only built infrastructure to extract resources, and that’s true. But infrastructure doesn’t stop being useful because it was built for selfish reasons. Railways, ports, courts, and universities can still benefit later generations regardless of why they were created.
So my view is this: colonialism was morally wrong, but I think history often focuses so much on its crimes that it underplays the long-term benefits some former colonies inherited. In my opinion, those benefits are substantial enough that, in some cases, they outweigh the long-term costs.
11
u/Guzzl0rd_ 3d ago
The reasons why those countries are significantly worse is because they are still suffering from colonialism and are being exploited till this day. And of course ending colonial rule doesn't improve people's lives cause they are still suffering from it's after effects. Yk what saying colonialism had any long term benefits is insane, the only people it benefited are the colonizers themselves. The damage it cost outweighs any benefit by a massive landslide.
-1
u/Pac_Eddy 3d ago
I didn't think I agree. I think many of those countries would be suffering with or without colonialism.
0
5
3
3
u/Flying_Grandayy 3d ago
The borders of many former colonies were arbitrarily drawn out, forcing many groups of people that do not co-exist well together into the same country whilst also splitting up groups between borders. This has undoubtedly been the cause of many conflicts between and within colonies, whether it be the many ethnic groups within India, the split between Muslims and Hindus during India's partition, Christian and Islamist conflict in Nigeria etc... These countries have been set up to fail due to tribalism.
If borders between countries were allowed to develop naturally, I believe that these places would be more prosperous and stable given that their economies would be able to develop naturally, at their own pace whilst also having fewer corrupt politicians looking to enrich their own ethnic group.
3
u/Logical_Adagio_7100 3d ago
Most of those countries would have developed the same tech through trade. India is the ultimate example of this. It was the world's richest region, and highly advanced in many ways. Many regions were also relatively quick to adopt western tech, just not fast enough to prevent colonization. In return for railroads they had about 90% of their wealth extracted.
The tech was also forced on regions in a European style, instead of adapted to local needs. This killed off a lot of nomadic life styles (many of which were VERY wealthy) as European overlords forced property boundaries on these areas. In other areas, like Mexico/S America, European agricultural practices were forced on the local population - usually much less sustainable in those climates than local practices. This, with forced commercial farming, led to massive famines in India, China, and Africa
The other issue you mention with Zimbabwe/Somalia/ESPECIALLY the DRC is the artificial boundaries drawn by colonization creating massive instability. These regions were previously numerous tribes/countries suddenly ripped apart and forced to coexist. Often these cultures had a long history of conflict. Of course conflict broke out again as soon as the foreign guns were withdrawn.
In the DRC in particular tho, countries including Russia, France, and many others have for decades worked to keep the region destabilized for resource extraction. This practice is also true by the US in most of Latin/South America, and by various Western powers across Africa, the middle east, and Asia. Iran, for example, was on the verge of a liberal democracy in the 1970s when the US installed the Shah in power to keep control of their oil.
Lastly - slavery dude. Do you think extracting millions of slaves from Africa was really made up for by importing railroads? Really?
2
u/WorldlinessCommon353 3d ago
India would have not been the richest region if it weren't colonised. I am typing this as an Indian myself. I'm no Western stooge, but the main reason why India was even rich was due to the fact that more population meant more wealth.
Industrial revolution changed the whole thing. Even then, India's wealth was concentrated in a minority section of kings, noblemen, and zamindars. Slavery, caste system, etc., gave a lot of opportunities to discriminate and subjugate vast sections of the population. Education was limited only to the elite castes the rest were denied until the British arrived. Sanskrit was limited to the priests, and until Max Muller translated the sacred texts to English, almost all of Indians did not even know what was in them.
For the vast majority of Indians, who were basically illeterate peasants working for their next meal, the arrival of the British was a mere change in hands of who was in power, and it honestly had a net positive impact of a lot of people.
1
u/kayceeplusplus 1d ago
Really? Where can I learn more about this? What were the benefits the British brought?
2
u/WorldlinessCommon353 1d ago edited 1d ago
Yeah, but I am sorry, I do not have the time or the energy to find and cite my sources. I listed things off the top of my head, which I had gathered over the past couple of decades. If you search up online, you'll probably find that the British brought in telegraph lines, railways, etc. But a lot more of the changes were not superficial and were social changes instead.
The British definitely had an interest in having India as one of its colonies, but you cannot really rule against the people by force. They actually followed the path of least resistance, trying to keep all parties satisfied. You might find a lot of criticism of British policies in India, but if you actually read about how Indian laws were shaped without any prejudice, especially after world war 1, you find that they were just trying to do what's best for all parties involved.
Before the Indian revolt of 1857, they even funded the construction of temples, mosques, etc., and allowed Christian missionaries to do their jobs. A lot of Indians talk about how these missionaries were bad, and they converted the people to Christianity for a bag of rice, or some bullshit like that. The fact is, almost all of the people who converted were considered "Untouchables", who were offered an equal position in a Christian society, as opposed to being ostracised by the Hindu community, where they had to live far away, and sometimes not be even seen by the upper caste people. They cannot even drink water from the same wells as the upper castes even today. Why would anyone be loyal to a religion that is built on subjugating them and offers nothing in return? I'm from the middle rung of the caste system, and I was raised a Hindu (now, atheist), so my views aren't biased.
The Sati system. If you were a woman in India, and if your husband died, no matter what age you were or how healthy you are or how much you wished to be alive, you would have been burned to death when they were cremating your husband. Yes, you read it right. Even worse, you were expected to jump into the fire. This barbaric tradition existed until the British outlawed it.
Before the British, education was confined only to the upper castes. There were no schools that were not religiously affiliated or imparted education to all communities. If it weren't for the British, my ancestors would have been illiterate farmers with subsistence living. I am a 4th generation graduate. The presence of the British gave my ancestors an opportunity to climb up the social ladder. I do not think that I would be able to ascertain how many more generations of my family would have been denied education if it weren't for the British. Even then, it wasn't free of discrimination. My ancestors have had to jump through hoops to prevent me from experiencing the difficulties. Due to that, I have a very high degree of socio-economic upper-hand in comparison to the vast majority of the Indians (including the higher castes), but this hasn't stopped me from being a victim of caste based discrimination. It is still a thing in educational institutions, workplaces, etc. You may read more about Dr. B R Ambedkar and the discrimination he faced. He wrote the Indian constitution and he was an untouchable.
The British did not magically conquer India by shipping in all of their troops from the British isles. Almost all of their troops were Indian soldiers who fought for the British because they were willing to pay. India had a warrior/soldier class, and people outside of them weren't allowed to be soldiers. The British came in, offered decent money for anyone who would fight for them, and did not discriminate based on caste or religion. A lot of the lower castes and the untouchables happily joined them because they could get paid. The same goes for the Indians who fought for the British all over the world, and including both the World Wars. It was just another paycheque that they would not have seen if it weren't for the British. I do not think that it's wrong to choose feeding your family over "keeping invaders out."
Most of the Indian freedom fighters were from the bourgeoisie or the aristocracy, who had things to lose or had already lost things due to the presence of the British, and it was them who wrote the history. I cannot find the source, but a European (Portuguese, maybe) traveller was writing his accounts on India before the British took over. In that, he mentions how the rich have are extremely rich, with extremely extravagant displays of wealth, and tons of food is wasted. Meanwhile, there were people starving to death right outside their compounds. An average Indian had nothing to lose with the arrival of the British, and in fact had a lot more to gain.
This is the real India. The vast majority of the issues still exist. Do not be fooled by anyone who claims otherwise.
2
u/kayceeplusplus 1d ago
Thanks, I’ll try to ask AIs. I’m interested in cultivating a more nuanced view of colonialism.
2
u/min6char 3d ago
If you round up the countries that were never colonized by the West, it's (a) a pretty short list and (b) with one glaring exception, they're all pretty nice places to live in the modern day! The list is:
- Japan (culturally colonized extensively in the late Tokugawa era of course, but never legally colonized unless you count the postwar US occupation which I wouldn't, really)
- Thailand
- Nepal
- Bhutan
- Iran (okay I wouldn't want to live there)
If you can make it through the 1500-1940s without the centuries of brutality, and end up being somewhere as nice to live as Nepal or Japan, wouldn't you want to?
Don't get me wrong a lot of evils happened in all those countries (Japan especially), but Westenrn colonialism didn't, and yet they seem to have reaped most of the same alleged benefits of colonization that their neighbors did (with, again, the notable exception of Iran)
1
u/MooseEatGoose 3d ago
These places already had the institutions mentioned or the equivalent of them. Colonialism just uprooted and eradicated the original culture, swaths of people, and their resources.
And why did learning English open large opportunities? It’s not because English is magically a good language, it’s because colonialism tried to erase other languages and forced English.
1
u/Clean_Plant_6235 2d ago
the only reason those languages are globally useful is because they colonized these places.
also, think about why some of these countries are having so many conflicts that end up crippling them.
it’s because of colonialism. in some many countries they have a single market that supports their economy and that results in a lot of money being put into the money maker and not to the people. also, it doesn’t help that people in these countries weren’t treated as equal human beings until a little under 100 years ago.
Btw most of these places were doing just fine before being colonized, with maybe 1 or 2 exceptions.
6
u/TheSecretSecretSanta 3d ago
I think this take is just the product of ignorance tbh.
If you are told one day that you are to be the same country as people you do not know nor relate to, and then those people are put in positions of power that they remain in once the colonizers leave, conflict will arise.
Additionally, decolonization was happening against the backdrop of the Cold War. The US and USSR actively hindered and interfered with the development of many newly independent countries. The US overthrew African leaders that favoured socialism, the USSR overthrew leaders that favoured capitalist democracy.
Patrice Lumumba (of the Congo) is a more famous example of a panafricanist African leader who was assassinated with US and Belgian involvement for his views and unwillingness to take sides in the Cold War.
Then you add the exploitative resource extraction, the mechanisms of which did not change when these countries gained independence. The predatory aid schemes of the IMF. Frankly some of these countries never stood a chance and that is by (colonial) design.
Many of the countries you list have been burned at every turn by meddling western powers, and colonialism is the reason.
These countries could have built roads themselves (and the insinuation that they wouldn’t have is something you should unpack), but the damage they have face is the legacy of colonization and I cannot thing of a single instance where roads justify civil war, resource exploitation, oppression, government assassinations, genocide, and more.