[Political Interest]

Colonialism was a disaster for the West. Some short sighted European nationalists may feel that colonialism was something glorious for their countries but in reality it is what has destroyed them. Colonialism was built on cosmopolitanism and liberalism. The reason why Britain today is so cosmopolitan and liberal is because it pursued colonialism. The British Empire put the UK at the center of international trade and finance.

On a cultural level colonialism disconnected European countries from their own hinterland. It put their focus outside Europe and instead on their colonies in Africa and Asia.

Cosmopolitanism came about as a result of liberalism and these empires operated on the basis of liberal capitalism.

In essence colonialism was what helped to cement liberalism within Western countries.

For those countries which never had colonies we can see that they often did not adopt either liberalism or cosmopolitanism.

Some may argue that colonialism is what allowed mass industrial development, but in the end was this something desirable if it was to come about through the destruction of Western societies in the long run?

[Rei Murasame]

The way that your argument goes though, it seems that you are not really saying that colonialism was bad in all instances. You are saying that it was productive and progressive thing, but that the conjuncture where liberalism could've been pulled under the combine and shredded was unfortunately missed.

The British Empire is the perfect example of this, because British Empire could have become a federation bloc of partially socialised economies focussed on local development and infrastructure and education in the various places it controlled, but unfortunately the liberal imperialist faction (their own term for themselves, I am not sticking that label on them) defeated the social imperialist faction at the conjuncture in London when the time came, and so the uninterrupted muddled and 'suicidally' rapacious history of the British Empire after the 1890s is a result of that fateful outcome.

[Travesty]

Colonialism was great for the West. So Spain should have sat at home 15th Century and Venice should still have the monopoly of trade from the East? America should still be undiscovered? Where is the logical conclusion to "Colonialism is bad" ?

empires operated on the basis of liberal capitalism

No it was mercantilism. Liberalism came about's towards the end of the Napoleonic wars.

[Rei Murasame]

I assume that he's only talking about what happened after that period though. PI is living in Britain, so usually this narrative coming from Britons is about everything that happened after the Battle of Waterloo, so I assume he's picked that up along the way.

I don't think anyone would seriously question whether Britain ought to have invested in exploration and shipbuilding after it had amassed cotton-wealth in the 14th century.

[Travesty]

Well there are too many assumptions being made here. Why did Cosmopolitanism and Liberalism in conjunction with Colonialism supposedly lead to the downfall of the West? And by the way colonial Europe WAS NOT cosmopolitan, Indians certainly did not hold the same status in the Raj or in Britain as Anglo Saxons same goes for other natives. America had and arguably has colonies and it's fine. Japan was a colonial power nothing cosmopolitan about it today.. this is a post ww2 European guilt thing.

[Fasces]

I agree entirely. The disastrous results of colonialisation can be seen most acutely in those societies which attempted to blur the gap between colony and nation - France and Algeria, or Britain and the Raj. These social groups [migrants from aforementioned colonial territories] formed the spearhead of the multiculturalist movement in Europe which threatens European identity. It also encouraged a modern consumer society by removing the connection between man and soil, and promoting an attitude of "there is always more land", undermining attitudes toward ecological stewardship.

[Social_Critic]

Colonialism worked for the Dutch, I think. It worked really well for the Roman Empire. And I think it worked ok for the USA.

[Political Interest]

The way that your argument goes though, it seems that you are not really saying that colonialism was bad in all instances. You are saying that it was productive and progressive thing, but that the conjuncture where liberalism could've been pulled under the combine and shredded was unfortunately missed.

My argument is that colonialism helped to bring about development in Europe and put Europe at the center of the global trade system and international finance. The result of this was prosperity for the last four hundred years or so. However this has come at a tremendous price. In the long run no country can profit from colonialism. In the short term there will be economic benefits, no one can deny it but in the greater scheme of things the colonial record will come to haunt the coloniser. It will serve to morally undermine the country in question in a number of ways. Even Japan has to answer for its colonial history in Asia and still gets a very hard time over this.

I know that you would propose something along the lines of the Japanese Empire with corporatism instead of liberal capitalism but this does not solve anything.

At the end of the day you will still have people claiming the right to "punish" Britain. You will still have concepts like 'white male privilege' and others which do not exist outside non-colonial contexts. For example in Ukraine and Poland there is none of this, these countries had no empires. Russia chose the colonial path and it also generated anti-Russian feeling because of this.

The British Empire is the perfect example of this, because British Empire could have become a federation bloc of partially socialised economies focussed on local development and infrastructure and education in the various places it controlled, but unfortunately the liberal imperialist faction (their own term for themselves, I am not sticking that label on them) defeated the social imperialist faction at the conjuncture in London when the time came, and so the uninterrupted muddled and 'suicidally' rapacious history of the British Empire after the 1890s is a result of that fateful outcome.

It changes nothing. There would still be nationalist feelings and at the end of the day you would find there would be international resentment towards the UK just as there is today. People do not like being ruled by outsiders if they have the ability to rule themselves. If anything development would only further increase a desire for independence as colonies would feel the self-confidence to rule themselves with their developed economies.

Colonialism was great for the West. So Spain should have sat at home 15th Century and Venice should still have the monopoly of trade from the East? America should still be undiscovered? Where is the logical conclusion to "Colonialism is bad" ?

Yes Spain should have stayed where it was and focused on its geographic region like the majority of world states at this time. Instead of creating trans-continental sea empires the countries of Europe should have aimed towards land empires. Also America was already discovered and it was discovered by the Native Americans already living there. There was no need to colonise this country. In many ways Europe would be better off without ever having colonised the Americas. The logical conclusion is that Europe could have developed at a slower pace and traded international power for a maintenance of their own identities.

No it was mercantilism. Liberalism came about's towards the end of the Napoleonic wars.

The result is the same.

I assume that he's only talking about what happened after that period though. PI is living in Britain, so usually this narrative coming from Britons is about everything that happened after the Battle of Waterloo, so I assume he's picked that up along the way.

Yes, this is my point of view. It is after speaking alot to British nationalists who say ridiculous things like "We need to recolonise Africa for the glory of Britannia!" or "India should be encouraged to rejoin the empire". Such people are living in the 19th century and fail to see that British history exists before the 1600s.

I don't think anyone would seriously question whether Britain ought to have invested in exploration and shipbuilding after it had amassed cotton-wealth in the 14th century.

It would have been possible to build ships and trade without going to Africa, America and Asia and colonising those lands or creating the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. These things will for centuries be a moral poisoner in the narrative of British history. On such a basis people can say that the British people have no right to exist.

Well there are too many assumptions being made here. Why did Cosmopolitanism and Liberalism in conjunction with Colonialism supposedly lead to the downfall of the West? And by the way colonial Europe WAS NOT cosmopolitan, Indians certainly did not hold the same status in the Raj or in Britain as Anglo Saxons same goes for other natives. America had and arguably has colonies and it's fine. Japan was a colonial power nothing cosmopolitan about it today.. this is a post ww2 European guilt thing.

Because cosmopolitanism and liberalism led to social changes which are today rapidly destroying European society. For example, the materialism, individualism, trash culture and other elements of the contemporary West are the result of this, financed by empire. Both of these things led to a lack of cohesion.

The British Empire was cosmopolitan because while Indians may not have had the same status as the English the notion in propaganda was that it was an empire of many peoples not confined to one geographic area. It was the idea that everyone was one large happy family under the British flag.

The case of Japan is not a useful comparison because Japan colonised only Asian countries. Spain, Britain and France did not colonise other parts of Europe but instead went Africa, Asia-Pacific and the Americas. Also the Japanese colonial project was limited compared to that of the European ones.

I agree entirely. The disastrous results of colonialisation can be seen most acutely in those societies which attempted to blur the gap between colony and nation - France and Algeria, or Britain and the Raj. These social groups [migrants from aforementioned colonial territories] formed the spearhead of the multiculturalist movement in Europe which threatens European identity. It also encouraged a modern consumer society by removing the connection between man and soil, and promoting an attitude of "there is always more land", undermining attitudes toward ecological stewardship.

And you will also not find any of this in African or Asian countries either.

Colonialism worked for the Dutch, I think. It worked really well for the Roman Empire. And I think it worked ok for the USA.

Both the Dutch Empire and the Roman Empire are gone, the American Empire is collapsing.

[Rei Murasame]

It changes nothing. There would still be nationalist feelings and at the end of the day you would find there would be international resentment towards the UK just as there is today. People do not like being ruled by outsiders if they have the ability to rule themselves. If anything development would only further increase a desire for independence as colonies would feel the self-confidence to rule themselves with their developed economies.

I agree that it might still have ended up that way, but it would've at least been better for everyone if they had something to start out with, instead of having to start from scratch after all their resources were outright looted.

It would have been possible to build ships and trade without going to Africa, America and Asia and colonising those lands or creating the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. These things will for centuries be a moral poisoner in the narrative of British history. On such a basis people can say that the British people have no right to exist.

By that logic, all people who were born on damp and rainy islands have 'no right to exist'. Island people have no real option other than to do these things, their right to exist is affirmed by their willingness to try to at least do colonisation of empty spaces, if not of full spaces.

[Political Interest]

I agree that it might still have ended up that way, but it would've at least been better for everyone if they had something to start out with, instead of having to start from scratch after all their resources were outright looted.

The ideal situation would be for them not to have been looted in the first place. They could have technology, economy and development through trade with Europe.

By that logic, all people who were born on damp and rainy islands have 'no right to exist'. Island people have no real option other than to do these things, their right to exist is affirmed by their willingness to try to at least do colonisation of empty spaces, if not of full spaces.

You misunderstand me. I am not saying the British have no right to exist but many people who say that the country must pay the ultimate price to atone for colonialism will often say it is because of the empire. If there was no empire then the country would have nothing to atone for in this sense. Sweden is one country which does not have this problem. No one can say to the Swedes, "You were colonialists".

As for island peoples needing colonial expansion, is it not true that Britain and Japan managed to survive before they created their empires? Indonesia is a collection of island states and while they have economic problems this has little to do with them not indulging in colonialism.

[Social_Critic]

Political interest, your posts are so long and comprehensive you need to consider binding them and publishing them in a book.

Regarding Dutch, roman and USA colonialism: colonialism is like a good meal, you can eat it and feel better, and just because the meal is gone it doesn't mean you ate garbage. I'm leaning towards saying that you came up with an idea, it has been debated, you can't defend it well, yet you cling to it.

You should do what I do, I have all sorts of ideas, research a bit, bounce them off people, and 95% of the time they are sheer bullshit, have holes, or don't work period. When they do work, they are usually mundane and nobody wants to use them. Once in a while I do get a good one. But to get the good ones you got to be able to trash a lot in between.

[Rei Murasame]

As for island peoples needing colonial expansion, is it not true that Britain and Japan managed to survive before they created their empires?

Before industrialisation, sure. I'm not sure why people keep making this mistake, but different epochs place different demands on people if they are going to survive in a hostile world.

People might be able to say 'you have sinned', but in those times it was either do that or lose the ability to shape the world in any significant way later on. If we are always afraid to strike out and try to be bold, for fear that we might have to regret it later, then we'd be internalising a value set that would also make constructing a European Union impossible, and constructing ASEAN impossible.

I think I said it a while ago, here, a very long post, but I'll just clip the very end of it:

[...]

Laotse once said, "Heaven and Earth are pitiless". That's right, and there is no universal morality, humans make their own morals. If a girl is starving in Coventry, it is not unreasonable for those people to seek to make society stronger so that she can be protected from starvation. Fighting is the way to survive in the world, and if it means that the British state had to levy taxes and fight wars, then that is simply unfortunate.

That's how Britain was able to make something of itself despite being such a small little island with so few natural resources. The lesson is clear.

Plucky little island, be strong!

If only it had become strong enough later on to be able to suspend the internal conflicts within Britain itself that were caused by capitalism. If only various conjunctures had not been navigated in ways that favoured the financiers. Then we'd [have been in a position to] be able to recapture that warm and kind spirit of the pre-capitalist village community in the modern era, despite everything...

_____________________________
* To back up this wonderful argument I will use ideas from:

• Optimal Rent Extraction in Pre-industrial England and France – Default Risk and Monitoring Costs, Mikael Priks, CESifo Working Paper No. 1464, May 2005 and
• Fiscal Exceptionalism: Great Britain and its European Rivals, Department of Economic History, London School of Economics, Working Paper No. 65/01, Patrick K. O’Brien, October 2001.

Most relevant:

Optimal Rent Extraction in Pre-industrial England and France – Default Risk and Monitoring Costs, Mikael Priks, CESifo Working Paper No. 1464, May 2005, pg 17 - 19.

Let it not be said that we are 'purely emotional' about this.

Okay. It is also true that Japan only developed into the force that it was - and still is to some extent - because it used protectionism and inward investment driven by its military-industrial complex starting in the 1890s. But Japan isn't a 'western' nation so I will leave it out of this.

To address your point most directly, the power to usher in any form of post-capitalist society rests atop first finding a way to accumulate the wealth to do so. Had we all skipped our turn to expand and obtain resources, we'd still be trapped in a agrarian-to-industrial transition now, or we'd not have much national capital, and we'd be in no position as a country to potentially lead the way with strength on anything because we'd be undergoing the transformation at some other jurisdiction's behest.

Yes, the past is stained with blood, but the best way to set everything right, is to make sure that it isn't all put to waste. That's why we have to make sure that we organise at this post-2008 crisis conjuncture to take the system off the hands of those financial entities who have been using the system for their own narrow aims, and create a sustainable solution that works for everyone.

In Western Europe there is plenty of capital to use, but no political willpower or organisation. In the global south there is unfortunately not as much capital, but lots of political willpower, just it also lacks organisation.

Lack of organisation is the biggest problem we all face, no matter where we are standing in the world.

[Soundtrack]

[Social_Critic]

I think the problem is that all these socialized economies eventually use up the money they saved when they were greedy capitalists. The solution isn't to have everybody wearing rags and looking like Cubans - it has to involve market forces, healthy capitalism and a quality educational system to keep the bad guys out of office.

[Rei Murasame]

No one is against a market system, and no one in here is arguing for a replication of Cuba. Political Interest is basically a mixed-mode capitalist at the moment, and I'm a fascist (national syndicalism --> corporatism).

I have never called for an end to the price mechanism, nor have I ever called for the total and complete abolition of private property as a concept. Nor have I ever supported any system that has a tendency to make those two things happen.

Opposition to capitalism does not mean becoming Cuba.

[Rich]

Good God I have seen it all now. A fascist regretting colonialism is like a Nazi regretting that they weren't nice to the Jews. I guess I do see things from my semi feminist quasi Liberal perspective. OK we weren't perfect but we brought civilised vales to so much of the world. There's so much of our past to be proud of, but one example springs to mind. In a 1878 the Zulu came across the border and murdered a princess, just because she didn't want to have an arranged marriage. But at Rourkes drift we gave those savages a damn good thrashing, I've nothing against roughing it up a bit in the bedroom, but that's no way to treat a lady.

[Travesty]

Yes Spain should have stayed where it was and focused on its geographic region like the majority of world states at this time. Instead of creating trans-continental sea empires the countries of Europe should have aimed towards land empires. Also America was already discovered and it was discovered by the Native Americans already living there. There was no need to colonise this country. In many ways Europe would be better off without ever having colonised the Americas. The logical conclusion is that Europe could have developed at a slower pace and traded international power for a maintenance of their own identities.

What do you mean Spain or Portugal SHOULD have stayed where they where and become land Empires. Portugal could not compete with Spain on land and Spain could not compete with France. Spain and Portugal wanted to break the monopoly of trade by the Italians and sought a new route in the East to trade with India and China. Colonialism was inevitable. The Portuguese expansion in Africa built on the knowledge that the Muslims had of Africa and the East. Columbus did not even intend to reach a new continent. There was also a lot of new technology developed at the time that made exploration attractive. Most navigators and Ship- Captains where driven by an individual desire for fame and wealth etc, Columbus wanted to get to the East Indies himself and only sought sponsorship from monarchs. If Isabella and Ferdinand would have rejected sponsoring his voyage than eventually someone else would have sponsored him either the English the French or the Italians.

The result is the same.

This was not a Liberal- Capitalists bourgeois desire to constantly expand markets but a desire to enrich and strengthen the centralized state.Religious evangelical factors also played a role in their expansion. If those natives where not Christian then they had no claim to any land. And the popes during the reformation really wanted to expand their base of converts. So reserve a lot of blame for Catholic Christianity as well.

There was no need to colonise this country.

Colonization of America opened up new trade goods and gold source that did allow Spain to become the most powerful state in Europe for a couple of Centuries. Sugar plantations, Tobacco plantations where very successful.

Blaming today's Europeans for Colonialism is ridiculous. The moral/scientific and religious factors where completely different in the 15th Century. And Europe today is paying for it anyway. Britain and France are being overrun by immigration from their former colonies this is just reverse colonialism that will eventually alter the socio cultural fabric of European countries. Immigration could have been restricted at any time but unfortunately the European Left (and right sometimes) is retarded and even believe their own post-modern values propaganda.

[Rei Murasame]

Good God I have seen it all now. A fascist regretting colonialism is like a Nazi regretting that they weren't nice to the Jews.

Political Interest isn't a fascist.

[Suska]

Lack of organisation is the biggest problem we all face, no matter where we are standing in the world.

It seems to me the bigger problem which your simplistic solution would exacerbate is

why bother?

I don't want to be "organized" into the functionary of a state. I am loyal to my country to the degree that it is useful for me and mine. In as much as they are strangers and keep to their business I don't care at all. In as much as they are functionaries of some American system they are - in my personal painful experience - complete imbeciles with a duty to demonstrate my exclusion and exploitation. I have no historical ambitions for "America" I wish it would shut the fuck up and behave like it knows its place (as a figment of the imagination).

Colonialism rested on the assumption of nation which never really existed. It was the work of a class of exploiters and began with the lie of national solidarity. It's complete nonsense to say the "French" conquered the Congo. What? All Frenchmen? No, the "organized" part though, yes. Those Frenchmen. So let's talk about "organization" again shall we?

[Political Interest]

Political interest, your posts are so long and comprehensive you need to consider binding them and publishing them in a book.

Maybe you are being sarcastic.

Regarding Dutch, roman and USA colonialism: colonialism is like a good meal, you can eat it and feel better, and just because the meal is gone it doesn't mean you ate garbage. I'm leaning towards saying that you came up with an idea, it has been debated, you can't defend it well, yet you cling to it.

Yes but often we can enjoy a meal and have a stomach upset a few hours later. What has a fine taste at twelve in the afternoon may give us stomach pains by the evening. Colonialism brought wealth to Europe but it also brought it the problems of liberalism, cosmopolitanism, materialism and a colonial legacy to haunt it for centuries to come. All of these things are strains on the health of any society.

You should do what I do, I have all sorts of ideas, research a bit, bounce them off people, and 95% of the time they are sheer bullshit, have holes, or don't work period. When they do work, they are usually mundane and nobody wants to use them. Once in a while I do get a good one. But to get the good ones you got to be able to trash a lot in between.

Thank you for your advice.

Before industrialisation, sure. I'm not sure why people keep making this mistake, but different epochs place different demands on people if they are going to survive in a hostile world.

And what would have been the result of not becoming colonial powers for Britain and Japan? The truth is that we can never know. However we can be certain there were alternative choices at the time when they chose to enact colonialism. How was Sweden able to survive by keeping its empire land based and confined to Europe? The channel was always a defensive barrier against the continent in the case of Britain in the medieval period. Similarly the Japan Sea helped to defend Japan from outside invaders. There is nothing to say a vast empire was necessary to defend the country.

People might be able to say 'you have sinned', but in those times it was either do that or lose the ability to shape the world in any significant way later on. If we are always afraid to strike out and try to be bold, for fear that we might have to regret it later, then we'd be internalising a value set that would also make constructing a European Union impossible, and constructing ASEAN impossible.

With everything we do we must assess the risks. Not doing this will result in hasty decision making and long term failures. It is very Neo-Conservative thinking to make sudden 'cowboy style' decisions. The point is that Britain made itself an enemy of numerous peoples of this earth, as did many other colonial powers. In the long term this has served to counter its interests because it reduces the image of Britain internationally. Also it is important not to underestimate the importance of people being able to say to Britain, 'you have sinned' because having a moral position is as important as technical superiority. Without moral strength then technology becomes meaningless.

Laotse once said, "Heaven and Earth are pitiless". That's right, and there is no universal morality, humans make their own morals. If a girl is starving in Coventry, it is not unreasonable for those people to seek to make society stronger so that she can be protected from starvation. Fighting is the way to survive in the world, and if it means that the British state had to levy taxes and fight wars, then that is simply unfortunate.

That's how Britain was able to make something of itself despite being such a small little island with so few natural resources. The lesson is clear.

Plucky little island, be strong!

The issue is not a discussion of absolute or relative morality. It is about the perception people have of the European nations and how this relates to their right to exist and place in the world. Would you prefer for someone from India/Korea to have an oblivious or even possibly favorable opinion of Britain/Japan or would you prefer for them to have a negative one? Let us imagine that the first option is possible only by not choosing to start an empire. The second will come as a result of doing so. The UK colonised the whole world and you cannot fight the whole world when it comes knocking on your door demanding compensation for colonialism.

If only it had become strong enough later on to be able to suspend the internal conflicts within Britain itself that were caused by capitalism. If only various conjunctures had not been navigated in ways that favoured the financiers. Then we'd [have been in a position to] be able to recapture that warm and kind spirit of the pre-capitalist village community in the modern era, despite everything...

Such an atmosphere can only exist when the country looks inward instead of outward and when its focus is on the hinterland rather than on lands far across the seas.

Okay. It is also true that Japan only developed into the force that it was - and still is to some extent - because it used protectionism and inward investment driven by its military-industrial complex starting in the 1890s. But Japan isn't a 'western' nation so I will leave it out of this.

Britain still could have developed along the same model as Japan did, as could France, Spain and other European countries. Germany is a case in point. How did it develop with minimal colonial possessions? How did the Swedes have an empire without colonies in Africa and Asia? There is nothing to say colonialism was the only route to prosperity.

To address your point most directly, the power to usher in any form of post-capitalist society rests atop first finding a way to accumulate the wealth to do so. Had we all skipped our turn to expand and obtain resources, we'd still be trapped in a agrarian-to-industrial transition now, or we'd not have much national capital, and we'd be in no position as a country to potentially lead the way with strength on anything because we'd be undergoing the transformation at some other jurisdiction's behest.

In other words Europe would be something like China or Indonesia today. But what is to say that industrialisation would not happen in the end?

Good God I have seen it all now. A fascist regretting colonialism is like a Nazi regretting that they weren't nice to the Jews. I guess I do see things from my semi feminist quasi Liberal perspective. OK we weren't perfect but we brought civilised vales to so much of the world. There's so much of our past to be proud of, but one example springs to mind. In a 1878 the Zulu came across the border and murdered a princess, just because she didn't want to have an arranged marriage. But at Rourkes drift we gave those savages a damn good thrashing, I've nothing against roughing it up a bit in the bedroom, but that's no way to treat a lady.

As Rei said I am not a fascist and believing that Europe should not have gone for colonialism is not some sort of bigotry. You say that you brought civilised values to the world but all empires do this. No one will deny that there were positives but it was not in the long term interest of Europe to maintain these empires.

What do you mean Spain or Portugal SHOULD have stayed where they where and become land Empires. Portugal could not compete with Spain on land and Spain could not compete with France. Spain and Portugal wanted to break the monopoly of trade by the Italians and sought a new route in the East to trade with India and China. Colonialism was inevitable. The Portuguese expansion in Africa built on the knowledge that the Muslims had of Africa and the East. Columbus did not even intend to reach a new continent. There was also a lot of new technology developed at the time that made exploration attractive. Most navigators and Ship- Captains where driven by an individual desire for fame and wealth etc, Columbus wanted to get to the East Indies himself and only sought sponsorship from monarchs. If Isabella and Ferdinand would have rejected sponsoring his voyage than eventually someone else would have sponsored him either the English the French or the Italians.

They could have broken the monopoly of the Italians by using military force. What did they do before colonialism in the Middle Ages? Portugal could have maintained its independence in the same way landlocked countries in Eastern Europe did or the peoples of the Caucasus have done.

This was not a Liberal- Capitalists bourgeois desire to constantly expand markets but a desire to enrich and strengthen the centralized state.Religious evangelical factors also played a role in their expansion. If those natives where not Christian then they had no claim to any land. And the popes during the reformation really wanted to expand their base of converts. So reserve a lot of blame for Catholic Christianity as well.

Well they were short sighted.

Colonization of America opened up new trade goods and gold source that did allow Spain to become the most powerful state in Europe for a couple of Centuries. Sugar plantations, Tobacco plantations where very successful.

In this case why do we not colonise the moon if there are resources there? Making money at any cost is not always in the long term national interest.

Blaming today's Europeans for Colonialism is ridiculous. The moral/scientific and religious factors where completely different in the 15th Century. And Europe today is paying for it anyway. Britain and France are being overrun by immigration from their former colonies this is just reverse colonialism that will eventually alter the socio cultural fabric of European countries. Immigration could have been restricted at any time but unfortunately the European Left (and right sometimes) is retarded and even believe their own post-modern values propaganda.

I do not blame Europeans for anything. Unfortunately many people do. If they had nothing to blame Europe for then it would be better.

[Americanroyalty]

Colonialism allowed the West to start industrializing which allowed for the formation for essentially every modern political system. The empires have fallen apart but the west is still economically stable when compared to the places they colonized. You may not agree with the eventual shape Europe took, but without colonialism Europe would still be a bunch of backwater monarchies.

So how exactly was colonialism a bad thing for the west. They were after all able to conquer india and china the two most powerful empires of the East after all.