Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil and other American States have recently developed a habit of racist attacks upon Europeans. They accuse the present Europeans of being evil "colonialists".
The history of colonialism does not support this racist treatment. Colonialism was only one strand of wealth generation in the European States themselves. (See The Myth of Colonialism). Europe did not utterly depend on colonialism. It was the colonies and colonists that truly depended on colonialism and some of the colonists became very rich by exploiting foreign lands and their people. In 1776 British North America was one of the most prosperous places on earth.
Europe became more civilised during the "Enlightenment" and by the late eighteenth century it was realised that there were problems with colonialism. The European States began to limit the powers of the colonists to exploit "their" land. It was this limitation of the British North American Colonists to East of the Appalachians and the setting aside of large reserves for indigenous peoples in South America that truly fanned the flames of the North and South American independence movements.
Once they were independent, the colonists of the USA and South American States proceeded to expand their territories, committing genocide as they went. It always escapes the attention of the South American "anti colonialists" that in most of the countries that continued to be ruled by European Empires into the twentieth century the indigenous peoples and cultures survived fairly intact. In Africa it was only the semi-independent South Africans that truly threatened the natives. It is the Argentines, Brazilians, Americans, Ecuadoreans etc. who should be reviled for colonialism - after all, they were the colonists who did most of the damage.
So why do the current American States keep returning to the evils of colonialism as a European crime when they committed most of the crimes themselves? The answer is simple: Postmarxism (see Postmodernism-poststructuralism-postmarxism). The South American States in particular are using Postmarxist racism to stir up difference and hence support for the governing classes. The new South American left are using a fictitious idea of history to set up Britain as the colonialist enemy in the minds of their under educated populations. They feel safe attacking the British because they will not bite back, if they chose the Americans or the Chinese for this sort of treatment they would regret it.
In the case of the British Overseas Territories the charge of colonialism is especially reprehensible. The South Americans should be helping the British with the burden of supporting these territories, not attacking them. Most of these territories are small islands that depend on Britain for support in this wild world. Britain provides a refuge when there are volcanic eruptions (Montserrat and Tristan da Cunha), essential medical and communications services, investment (St Helena's airport etc) and protection against the neo-colonialist bullying of the South Americans (Falkland Islands). Any of these Territories could vote to be independent tomorrow but would you vote for independence if your island was a pyroclastic volcano or your neighbours perpetually threatened to invade? The exception to this list is the Chagosians, the USA should agree to allow them back in their native land. But, of course, the Chagos Archipelago, being a highly strategic US base, is not on the list of colonies held by the UN Decolonisation Committee...
Link to this article with http://tinyurl.com/ob3j7ly
See also:
Is the UN Decolonization Committee corrupt?
Obama and the Mau Mau and Malaya files
The myth of colonialism
Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina and Las Malvinas
The Falklands have always been Argentine - Las Malvinas son Argentinas
The history of colonialism does not support this racist treatment. Colonialism was only one strand of wealth generation in the European States themselves. (See The Myth of Colonialism). Europe did not utterly depend on colonialism. It was the colonies and colonists that truly depended on colonialism and some of the colonists became very rich by exploiting foreign lands and their people. In 1776 British North America was one of the most prosperous places on earth.
 | |
| Notice that Boston is a fully developed city |
Once they were independent, the colonists of the USA and South American States proceeded to expand their territories, committing genocide as they went. It always escapes the attention of the South American "anti colonialists" that in most of the countries that continued to be ruled by European Empires into the twentieth century the indigenous peoples and cultures survived fairly intact. In Africa it was only the semi-independent South Africans that truly threatened the natives. It is the Argentines, Brazilians, Americans, Ecuadoreans etc. who should be reviled for colonialism - after all, they were the colonists who did most of the damage.
So why do the current American States keep returning to the evils of colonialism as a European crime when they committed most of the crimes themselves? The answer is simple: Postmarxism (see Postmodernism-poststructuralism-postmarxism). The South American States in particular are using Postmarxist racism to stir up difference and hence support for the governing classes. The new South American left are using a fictitious idea of history to set up Britain as the colonialist enemy in the minds of their under educated populations. They feel safe attacking the British because they will not bite back, if they chose the Americans or the Chinese for this sort of treatment they would regret it.
In the case of the British Overseas Territories the charge of colonialism is especially reprehensible. The South Americans should be helping the British with the burden of supporting these territories, not attacking them. Most of these territories are small islands that depend on Britain for support in this wild world. Britain provides a refuge when there are volcanic eruptions (Montserrat and Tristan da Cunha), essential medical and communications services, investment (St Helena's airport etc) and protection against the neo-colonialist bullying of the South Americans (Falkland Islands). Any of these Territories could vote to be independent tomorrow but would you vote for independence if your island was a pyroclastic volcano or your neighbours perpetually threatened to invade? The exception to this list is the Chagosians, the USA should agree to allow them back in their native land. But, of course, the Chagos Archipelago, being a highly strategic US base, is not on the list of colonies held by the UN Decolonisation Committee...
Link to this article with http://tinyurl.com/ob3j7ly
See also:
Is the UN Decolonization Committee corrupt?
Obama and the Mau Mau and Malaya files
The myth of colonialism
Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina and Las Malvinas
The Falklands have always been Argentine - Las Malvinas son Argentinas
Comments