Are European countries obligated to help former colonies?

[Marcurix]

No the just killed and expelled hundreds of thousands of them.

No biggie.

For expelling, are you talking about the population transfer which was mutually agreed to by both Greece and Turkey and mediated by European imperial powers at the Treaty of Lausanne?

Nope, I'm talking about the Pontic genocide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_genocide

[Genivaria]

Because wanting a stable world is just 'White Guilt' somehow.

It's actually to the advantage of the West, if they play their cards right.

It's the advantage of everyone, and yet everyone is more concerned with short-sighted, nationalistic desires.
So-called 'International Realism' needs to be stabbed to death.

A world where nations put national interests before the interests of humanity are just as chaotic and unsustainable as everyone in a community looking out only for themselves.

[Arumdaum]

Both occurred in a different time by nations who significantly different from what they are today. In some instances, like in the cases Spain, France, and Portugal, it's not even the same state.

And yet African decolonization only happened during the 1900's, so it really shouldn't be a surprise that the effects of colonization are still around.
In many cases the people who lived to see decolonization in their country are STILL ALIVE.

It's nowhere near the same.

Not to mention that the effects of it will stick around much longer than those people are alive, such as the adherence to white beauty standards (which causes nonwhite people to view themselves as uglier), the sentiment that nonwhite peoples are inferior (as we regularly see in threads like these when people say that Africans can't govern themselves and need to be recolonized), numerous African countries are still stuck with the economic structures created for them by Europeans which made their economies dependent upon exports to Western countries, and so on.

[Baiynistan]

I'd say it depends on the problem. Generally, if a former colony is suffering because of fallout related to its time as a colony or the nature of their move to independence, then their former rulers should take the responsibility of cleaning up their messes.

I used to be somewhat against the idea of giving financial compensation to former colonial territories (thinking that with many of the people who suffered because of colonial rule being dead there was no one to give compensation to), until I heard Christopher Hitchens make the point that (and I paraphrase poorly) when peoples were subjected to slavery, the slaver nations acquired capital and services without cost. Paying compensation to nations were workers were mistreated by a foreign power is merely the paying of a long overdue debt.

[Azaflaza]

Whose opinions don't matter in this thread.

I don't think that systematic racism, the Atlantic Slave Trade, countries arbitrarily drawn without regard for the people living there, cultural genocide, actual genocide, etc. have turned out pretty damn well.

I don't think the destitution which the British brought to India has turned out "damn well," nor the backwardness caused upon China through unequal treaties.

However, then again, you only seem to care for people's opinions when they're white.

I don't get what you're talking about. You said colonization was a mistake, I said it wasn't because it turned out to the advantage of the people who did it, which makes it not a mistake.

I think it was atrocious, mostly because of the things you listed. Just because I (or you) think something is bad doesn't mean it was a mistake.

Considering European colonialism was one of the factors that set off both world wars which in turn marked the end of European dominance and collapsed many empires leaving Europe with the problem of supporting countries made from exploiting resources they no longer have. I would say colonialism was a mistake.

[Arumdaum]

For those colonised as well.

See: India, China, South Africa(not until recently, but meh), and more.

India and China were set back heavily due to colonization.

India's economy was purposely destroyed and made to be dependent upon the import of British goods, and China subsequently suffered due to unequal treaties. If neither were made to suffer these, China and India would have been in a better state historically, and probably today as well.

China was never actually colonized as well, merely divided into spheres of influence.

[The New Lowlands]

And yet African decolonization only happened during the 1900's, so it really shouldn't be a surprise that the effects of colonization are still around.
In many cases the people who lived to see decolonization in their country are STILL ALIVE.

It's nowhere near the same.

Not to mention that the effects of it will stick around much longer than those people are alive, such as the 1) adherence to white beauty standards (which causes nonwhite people to view themselves as uglier), 2) the sentiment that nonwhite peoples are inferior (as we regularly see in threads like these when people say that Africans can't govern themselves and need to be recolonized), 3) numerous African countries are still stuck with the economic structures created for them by Europeans which made their economies dependent upon exports to Western countries, and so on.

1) Probably more attributable to globalisation and advertising than colonialism, tbh.
2) Is that majorly present in nonwhite countries, then?
3) Probably has more to do with the fact that instability as a result of internal group tensions/poor security and a less than stellar ruling class meant that most ex-colonies have only recently (or not at all) begun to build up secondary and tertiary industries.

[Marcurix]

We should also probably address the Arab Slave Trade.

[Shnercropolis]

I don't get what you're talking about. You said colonization was a mistake, I said it wasn't because it turned out to the advantage of the people who did it, which makes it not a mistake.

I think it was atrocious, mostly because of the things you listed. Just because I (or you) think something is bad doesn't mean it was a mistake.

Considering European colonialism was one of the factors that set off both world wars which in turn marked the end of European dominance and collapsed many empires leaving Europe with the problem of supporting countries made from exploiting resources they no longer have. I would say colonialism was a mistake.

Europe was doomed to blow up ever since Napoleon marched out from France.

[Utceforp]

They're not obligated due to colonialism, seeing as most of the people involved with colonialism are dead and all. However, rich, prosperous countries really should help third world countries, so they're obligated for that reason.

Because wanting a stable world is just 'White Guilt' somehow.

Obviously you didn't read the second part of my post, where I said that they're obligated to help for reasons other than "White Guilt".

It's actually to the advantage of the West, if they play their cards right.

It's the advantage of everyone, and yet everyone is more concerned with short-sighted, nationalistic desires.
So-called 'International Realism' needs to be stabbed to death.

A world where nations put national interests before the interests of humanity are just as chaotic and unsustainable as everyone in a community looking out only for themselves.

Agreed.

[Genivaria]

Because wanting a stable world is just 'White Guilt' somehow.

Obviously you didn't read the second part of my post, where I said that they're obligated to help for reasons other than "White Guilt".

I was actually agreeing with your statement, it was mean't to be sarcastic.

[Libertarian California]

We should also probably address the Arab Slave trade.

lol

[Utceforp]

Obviously you didn't read the second part of my post, where I said that they're obligated to help for reasons other than "White Guilt".

I was actually agreeing with your statement, it was mean't to be sarcastic.

Whoops, sorry.

[Shnercropolis]

See: India, China, South Africa(not until recently, but meh), and more.

India and China were set back heavily due to colonization.

India's economy was purposely destroyed and made to be dependent upon the import of British goods, and China subsequently suffered due to unequal treaties. If neither were made to suffer these, China and India would have been in a better state historically, and probably today as well.

China was never actually colonized as well, merely divided into spheres of influence.

If they hadn't been colonized by Britain, India would have collapsed. The Mughals were seriously outdated. Indian standards of living shot up in the early 1900s.
If they hadn't been colonized by Japan, China would never have had a communist revolution(the nationalists would have probably won) and thus it probably wouldn't have industrialized so fast.
Anyway, Hong Kong and Macau definitely benefited from European colonization.

[Genivaria]

I was actually agreeing with your statement, it was mean't to be sarcastic.

Whoops, sorry.

S'alright.

[Azaflaza]

Considering European colonialism was one of the factors that set off both world wars which in turn marked the end of European dominance and collapsed many empires leaving Europe with the problem of supporting countries made from exploiting resources they no longer have. I would say colonialism was a mistake.

Europe was doomed to blow up ever since Napoleon marched out from France.

Again colonialism played its part in that.

[The New Lowlands]

Europe was doomed to blow up ever since Napoleon marched out from France.

Again colonialism played its part in that.

Wasn't there some kind of kerfuffle in France related to it? No?

[Shnercropolis]

Europe was doomed to blow up ever since Napoleon marched out from France.

Again colonialism played its part in that.

What?

[Azaflaza]

Again colonialism played its part in that.

Wasn't there some kind of kerfuffle in France related to it? No?

Not sure if genuinely asking but if so yes there was the French Revolution which is believed to be inspired by the American revolution, a product of colonialism. But now we are getting into the long chain of events which european colonialism has set off.

[Azaflaza]

Again colonialism played its part in that.

What?

Napoleon and his wars.

[Shnercropolis]

What?

Napoleon and his wars.

I don't see how the Napoleonic wars had anything to do with colonialism. They were fought entirely in Europe, with little aid from colonies.

[Arumdaum]

India and China were set back heavily due to colonization.

India's economy was purposely destroyed and made to be dependent upon the import of British goods, and China subsequently suffered due to unequal treaties. If neither were made to suffer these, China and India would have been in a better state historically, and probably today as well.

China was never actually colonized as well, merely divided into spheres of influence.

If they hadn't been colonized by Britain, India would have collapsed. The Mughals were seriously outdated. Indian standards of living shot up in the early 1900s.
If they hadn't been colonized by Japan, China would never have had a communist revolution(the nationalists would have probably won) and thus it probably wouldn't have industrialized so fast.
Anyway, Hong Kong and Macau definitely benefited from European colonization.

The Mughals would have been naturally replaced by other powers in India.

China was never colonized by Japan. Furthermore, communist sentiment arose after the 1911 Xinhai Revolution, and compromised a significant portion of the Guomindang. This was long before the Second Sino-Japanese War. China didn't necessarily need communists in power to lead industrialization either.

Hong Kong and Macau are a tiny part of China, which benefited only due to reasons which held the rest of China back.

[Azaflaza]

Napoleon and his wars.

I don't see how the Napoleonic wars had anything to do with colonialism. They were fought entirely in Europe, with little aid from colonies.

Napoleons rise came from the French Revolution which was arguably inspired by the American revolution, a product of colonialism.

[Ostroeuropa]

All nations are obligated to assist all peoples who are suffering under tyranny or destitution.

[Utceforp]

Wasn't there some kind of kerfuffle in France related to it? No?

Not sure if genuinely asking but if so yes there was the French Revolution which is believed to be inspired by the American revolution, a product of colonialism. But now we are getting into the long chain of events which european colonialism has set off.

That's a little unfair. Saying that colonialism caused the French revolution because it caused the American revolution is like saying that Napoleon's conquest of Egypt was caused by Ashurbanipal, because Ashurbanipal's death caused instability in Mesopotamia, which allowed for the Achaemenids to take power, which allowed for Alexander the Great to take power, who's conquest of Egypt inspired Napoleon to do the same. After a sufficiently long chain of events, you have to assign blame to coincidences rather than the original event. You could probably find other reasons for why the Napoleonic wars were caused by colonialism, though, I'm far from an expert on that period of history.

All nations are obligated to assist all peoples who are suffering under tyranny or destitution.

^This.