If European countries never lost their colonies, would the world be better off?

  • 109 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for lancelot200
lancelot200

61977

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#101 lancelot200
Member since 2005 • 61977 Posts

Incorrect. Philippines, former colony of Spain, robbed by the Americans which then became America's only colony, is the only Christian Asian nation that has a Filipino version of the American Constitution and presidential system. The system does not fit our culture for various reasons and the immense Christian faith here gives off an asian version of the European medieval times, thus my country is still the sick man of Asia.lordlors
With independance comes an opportunity to reform political institutions. Its population had the opportunity to create any system they desired. People are mastered of their own institutions. They could change it right now if they wanted to. If the Philippines retain a system modeled after the United States then there was reason for it.

For many of those cultures the sole contact with a culture as different as the european could provoke drastic changes even more when they are imposed. The europeans didn´t just go there and sat with their arms crossed there was an interest to cause a change, for example, the christian faith took as a mission to convert all who didn't worship their god. If they live in cities with central democratic/authocratic governments then that means they inherited their colonizer's cultures and, as we all now know, that was a mess.kuraimen
Yes. Contract with Europeans change cultures, but culture is not a static institution. You are confusing the culture with societal changes. Institutions can be changed with mere abolishment and creation. I agree that culture is changed forever, but there is no reason to cry over spilled milk. That's the point of postcolonialism to reform colonial institutions.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178860

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#102 LJS9502_basic  Online
Member since 2003 • 178860 Posts
No. It's not like there wasn't problems with their colonies....
Avatar image for Espada12
Espada12

23247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#103 Espada12
Member since 2008 • 23247 Posts

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"] Stop calling refering to the entire country as 'England', it's annoying to someone who is British and isn't English.gameofthering

England controlled everything at the time so historically I think it's right to use England.

It wasn't just England.

Well I mean in terms of the UK.. england was the one with the power since they controlled all the other territories within the UK.

Avatar image for CaveJohnson1
CaveJohnson1

1714

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#104 CaveJohnson1
Member since 2011 • 1714 Posts

Probably. Just look at africa, South america and east asia.

Avatar image for omho88
omho88

3967

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#105 omho88
Member since 2007 • 3967 Posts

Can't each country just mind its own business? the ME wasn't any better under the European wings either. What changed was the leader, instead of having Euro theives to lead us, we now have ME theives ruling the ME.

Avatar image for dercoo
dercoo

12555

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#106 dercoo
Member since 2006 • 12555 Posts

[QUOTE="IAMTHEJOKER88"]

If Europeans were still in power like you suggest there would probably be a lot more world wars/ cold wars. WW1 is the culmination of colonialism. Nations getting too big, too powerful, and with one little push can cause huge conflict.

I can't believe people think that if Britain still had many more of its colonies, and it still retains a fair few, then it would be Imperial. It's almost as if saying that human progression is hindered by supposed acts of colonialism that have in this thread been heavily exaggerated.

A better question would be to ask whether European governments could simply govern such a large number of people economically and politically in the modern world.

kuraimen

How is colonialism not bad? Define human progression.

Well if your the colonizer it's quite good.

Cheap labor, resources, and monopoly like controlled market (high profit on national products).

For the colonize, not so much.

Avatar image for Bashers79
Bashers79

559

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#107 Bashers79
Member since 2009 • 559 Posts

Africa would be better off right now. Europeans still think they know whats best for everyone. Mind your damn business.

Fuhgeddabouditt

I'm guessing from your profile page that you're an American? If so, then yourc omment makes you more than a bit hypocritical.

Avatar image for OrianaDorta
OrianaDorta

3114

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#108 OrianaDorta
Member since 2005 • 3114 Posts

South America would be better at least...

Avatar image for Overlord93
Overlord93

12602

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#109 Overlord93
Member since 2007 • 12602 Posts
If Europeans were still in power like you suggest there would probably be a lot more world wars/ cold wars. WW1 is the culmination of colonialism. Nations getting too big, too powerful, and with one little push can cause huge conflict.IAMTHEJOKER88
Colonies are no different from 1 country gaining too much military power to the stage where that one country cannot be trusted with the responsibility. :S *stares toward wester hemisphere* I understand and respect what you suggested, but I believe that it would be the same case, colonies or not