If UK had left Africa and Asia alone. What would have happen

Post Reply New Topic

What would have happened ? What I mean is what would happened had the British and other European colonial powers never gone to Africa and Asia to expand their empires ? This sounds like a controversial topic to talk about. I have heard on some occasions or watch some TV debates about colonialism and whether their legacies today are good or bad thing. I'm not an imperialist and I'm sure lots of people aren't and I don't really feel proud the British Empire. I do acknowledge that Britain as a country not an empire has done good things and done bad things. I do however find it frustrating and irritating when I listen to these debates that people want to only hear the good stuff and not much of the bad stuff or don't seem to acknowledge that people suffered and atrocities like Amritsar happened and that everything was great and we were a ''benevolent'' empire. None of us would agree of course with exploiting and enslaving other peoples in the world. I heard that the Australian Prime Minister has come out and said that colonialism by Britain was ''The luckiest thing that happened to his country.'' There have been some people from countries that were colonised saying well, without Britain and so on, we would still be ''living in the dark ages'' and others from those countries or even living in the UK today still will say that everything we did was bad and evil and should apologise and pay compensation and I seem to think that everyone who hears a lot about these topics will say ''We need to move forward and learn from the past and not keep looking back with hatred all the time otherwise we will never move forward.'' I have felt sometimes though that its probably no wonder other people from other countries still despise us today because of our imperialist past and interfering with other peoples' affairs. I have heard from other people though that you shouldn't hate the country you were born, lived and died in as I'm sure most countries have had good and bad things happen in their histories.

There are a few countries out there that were almost untouched by colonialism. That would probably be the best, albeit imperfect, place to start pondering.

There certainly would be many, many more instances of socialist, and even communist, projects throughout the continent.

Which of three continents mentioned in the title of the thread are you referring to (Europe, Asia, Africa)? And why would that be?

I was referring to Africa and Asia because they were the places that the colonial powers of Europe colonised.

Non-aboriginal Australians are the colonisers, so it isn't especially surprising that they think colonisation was good.

Here are some thoughts from me - not my greatest thoughts ever so I'm open to having holes picked in them.

- Most countries that currently exist would not. There would instead be more, smaller countries. This is particularly true of certain abnormally large countries like India, the US, Canada, Australia, and probably Brazil. (China and Russia would both still exist).
- Assuming non-European colonialism still exists, Japan would become the most powerful nation on Earth (ahead of the Soviet Union) and would probably colonise the west coast of North America. It would however eventually be forced out of most or all of its continental Asian holdings, in much the same way that France and Britain were.
- Assuming inter-European colonialism still exists, WWI still happens with a few changes (planes might not be invented in time), and so does WWII. WWII ends with all of Germany falling under Soviet control. Britain and any allies manage to re-take France, Belgium and the Netherlands.
- If inter-European colonialism doesn't exist, the Soviet Union doesn't exist. WWII still ends similarly but logically what happened next would be impossible, so I guess you'd have to contrive a way for Stalin (or whoever, given Stalin wasn't Russian) to just decide to leave again. Communism never conquers half of Europe, and it also never gets a foothold in Asia because of Japanese domination (which would probably somehow be even worse than Mao).
- HIV probably wouldn't exist.
- India's rail network wouldn't be as developed, but it would still have one.
- European rail networks wouldn't be as developed, but would still exist.
- the richest countries in the world today would probably be China, Japan, Japanese North America, Germany, the UK, and France.
- most of Africa and south Asia would be smaller countries than today, but with slightly higher GDPs per capita.
- central Africa and central Asia would still be terrible places torn up by war, unrest, and deprivation.
- global warming would be going about the same
- cricket would be about as popular as croquet
- football (soccer) would probably be about as popular as it is now, but the best teams would be very different. Germany and Italy would be better than France, and Brazil probably wouldn't exist.
- the Caribbean would have basically no population, although some of those islands were completely uninhabited so I guess colonising them is not "colonialism" in the pejorative sense.
- the logic of free trade and open borders would still be realised, and there would be minority groups on every continent. I'm just assuming that they don't leverage themselves into disproportionate power over the local majority.

Okay. Then your statement doesnt make any sense.

The whole reason that there WERE any socialist and communist movements in the third world was because of European Colonialism. So why would the absence of European colonialism have caused more of it?

Third world people in the colonies (like Ho Chi Minh) were educated in the west ...learned about western ideologies like both democracy and marxism, and then applied those ideas to their struggles to overthrow western colonialism.

And during the Cold War China and the USSR would aid anti colonial insurgencies against European colonizers.

Its a near impossible question to answer.

In Victorian times no one in the West but a tiny number of eccentric intellectuals ever questioned colonialism and thought it was glorius and benevolent and assumed that it was great that we in the advanced West were "taking up the White Man's Burden" (as Kipling put it) bringing bathtubs and Christianity to the great unwashed of the world. And Hollywood glorified it, and school text books glorified, up to WWII and after. But then the opposite became emphasized starting in the Sixties. And bad side of colonialism was emphasized.It was en vogue to glorify, and later it was en vogue to question it.

And the US always had a double think about it. We were always proud that we overthrew a colonial ruler, but by 1900 we had become colonizers ourselves in places like the Philippines.

So the trick is to be balanced. Step out of the vogue of the times and see both sides of the balance sheet.

Getting your ass conquered by a big empire worked both ways in both ancient and in early modern times. Local peoples rebelled against the Romans, but Rome brought roads and cities to places that never hand them before (like England and France), and spread the alphabet that this post is being written in to the world.

A certain WP member in an Arab country complained that one empire was an exception. The Ottoman Empire managed to be oppressive WITHOUT being of any benefit to its subjects at all. Just an oppressive corrupt dead hand on the Middle east and on Southeast Europe without being progressive in any way.

The British created the biggest Empire in history. Thirteen million square miles of North America, Africa, Asia, all of Australia, and countless strategic points all over. A quarter of the world's population. So if you're the biggest ever then everything you do, good and bad, is gonna be big. And the British empire probably did more of both evil and good than any other political entity in history. To take one big example:In early centuries Britain aided and abetted participated in and profited immensely from the transatlantic slave trade from Africa. But in the 19th Century Britain did more than any other power to police the seas and to stop and abolish the by then illegal slave trade.

So...pride or shame? Which is it? Kinda cancels out.

Aside from Ethiopia, which has been continuously independent since antiquity, there were tribal kingdoms (Songhai, Benin*, Zulu, et al) in Africa, some of which ruled a large chunk of the continent. Plus Arabs and Berbers would rule the areas north of the Sahara.

As for Asia, there were the Mongols, Mughals, Safavids, and various Arab groups (Oman extended to parts of present-day Tanzania at one point). Plus there were the east Asian empires.

Afghanistan would have likely been a war zone. There is a saying about the Pashtuns: "They are not at peace unless they are at war"

In short, there would have likely been the same level of warfare and conquest, and empire building even without European interference.

*The Kingdom of Benin was in present-day southwestern Nigeria. Though very near the present-day nation of Benin, the kingdom didn't include any of the current nation's territory.

Personally I'd rather attribute Afghanistan's instability to geography than the innate character of the people.

[speculation=mine]

Great Zimbabwe MAY have continued as a cultural center into the present.

[/speculation]

Great Zimbabwe is a medieval city in the south-eastern hills of the modern country of Zimbabwe, near Lake Mutirikwe and the town of Masvingo.  It is thought to have been the capital of a great kingdom during the Late Iron Age, about which little is known.  Construction on the city began in the 9th century and continued until it was abandoned in the 15th century.  The edifices were erected by ancestors of the Shona and other groups located in Zimbabwe and nearby countries.[4] The stone city spans an area of 7.22 square kilometres (2.79 sq mi) and could have housed up to 18,000 people at its peak, giving it a population density of approximately 2,500 inhabitants per square kilometre (6,500/sq mi).  It is recognised as a World Heritage Site by UNESCO.

Great Zimbabwe is believed to have served as a royal palace for the local monarch.  As such, it would have been used as the seat of political power.  Among the edifice's most prominent features were its walls, some of which are 11 metres (36 ft) high.  They were constructed without mortar (dry stone).  Eventually, the city was abandoned and fell into ruin.

The earliest document mentioning the Great Zimbabwe ruins was in 1531 by Vicente Pegado, captain of the Portuguese garrison of Sofala on the coast of modern-day Mozambique, who recorded it as Symbaoe.  The first confirmed visits by Europeans were in the late 19th century, with investigations of the site starting in 1871.  Some later studies of the monument were controversial, as the white government of Rhodesia pressured archeologists to deny its construction by black Africans.  Great Zimbabwe has since been adopted as a national monument by the Zimbabwean government, and the modern independent state was named after it.

The word great distinguishes the site from the many smaller ruins, now known as "zimbabwes", spread across the Zimbabwe Highveld.  There are 200 such sites in southern Africa, such as Bumbusi in Zimbabwe and Manyikeni in Mozambique, with monumental, mortarless walls.

Source:  This Wikipedia Article 

It’s an interesting question as a cynic would argue all this woke anti racism push in the west is just to cover up their current colonialism and exploitation of Africa.

I’m sure it’s necessary for blacks living in US or UK but kind of cloaks what white people are doing around the world.

Immigration is one such thing, sucking the talent and skilled people from developing countries that need it more, it’s ok for the doctors that move here less so for their fellow countrymen that have depleted medical services.

I saw not long ago an angry speech from the Italian president criticising France in Africa. It’s worth watching the short YouTube clips that give you an idea of what goes on

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ml-p1YyJb ... YW5jZSA%3D

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q-C8ogD6E ... YW5jZSA%3D

A better question would be what would the world be like if England hadn’t colonized Ireland.That was their first and the stepping stone for the rest.

Nope. Nope. So much wrong with this.

Firstly, generally speaking it is considered "woke" to be anti-colonial.

Arguing that poor people should be forced to keep living in poor countries is both morally repugnant on the face of it, and also counter-productive. The effects of "brain drain" are more than balanced by remittances. An Angolan doctor in Australia can earn much more than an Angolan doctor in Angola, then send the extra money back home so their extended family can improve their quality of life and their children can afford a better education.

Africa is not currently being colonised by Europe, except for maybe Ceuta and Melilla. That's two cities in Morocco. If you want to get angry about colonialism in modern Africa then look at the Western Sahara or Somaliland.

The Italian premier (not President) is a literal fascist who wants immigration stopped so that Italy remains a white country. I think it's safe to say her arguments here are more than a little disingenuous.

I think you may underestimate the negative effects of brain drain. Even the IMF/OECD/UNESCO globalists have raised concerns at what's happening in the poorest parts of Africa. Healthcare is a particular concern when people die left and right of preventable diseases. That extra money in remittances is not so helpful if there are no doctors to hire or bad ones at best.

I don't know about that i think business & US foreign policy interests rule supreme



That would mean 6 billion people move to the US & Europe? I`m not against immigration but its probably better for skilled intelligent people to work towards improving their own country than simply move away.



She`s on the political right but interestingly no one in Europe is remotely interested in talking about her, if she was indeed a fascist she would be in the news everyday & condemned by the EU & Washington etc.. maybe the Ukraine war is a distraction but she cant really be that extreme. But anyway regardless of her political views the comments she made about France`s actions in Africa are probably largely correct.