Lanmandragon
Well-known member
As a historical force do you consider imperalism. To be bad,neutral,or good? Please justify and or explain why you hold this position.
As a historical force do you consider imperalism. To be bad,neutral,or good? Please justify and or explain why you hold this position.
So do you think it's a good or bad thing? (The Romans genrally didn't intergrate folks unless convient. [See the Soci war] or politically xpident[Ceaser allowing Gauls into the Senate. To weight it in his favour].TBH, most of the stuff I know regarding Imperialism is from my University, which even in the Philippines leans very Left
Simply put as far as I know, colonies exist mostly just for the mainland, people here are supposed to be exporters of goods back to the main country and to be taxed and consume and maybe not have much in terms of actual infrastructure or skill attached to the populace
Definitely no say in politics for themselves if the mainland says something
Though, I am pretty sure even guys like the Roman Empire had imperialism, how long did it take for those lands to officially become part of the Empire and have their own say?
As a historical force do you consider imperalism. To be bad,neutral,or good? Please justify and or explain why you hold this position.
So do you think it's a good or bad thing? (The Romans genrally didn't intergrate folks unless convient. [See the Soci war] or politically xpident[Ceaser allowing Gauls into the Senate. To weight it in his favour].
Frankly Scotty that's a cop out and you know it. "Imperalism" in the modern context very very much. Refers directly and explicitly refers. To the European conquest of the world. Don't play bullshitsemantic games. Your better then that bro.The question as stated is too broad. There are various things that get called "imperialism" - and very often they have both good and bad elements.
So you realize I tottally said they didn't so right? Just only when convient for them and or important [Ceaser] folks wanted it. Of course ossmois would convert some. As the Roman culture was objectively superior to those around them. As demonstrated by them stomping on everyone around them for centuries.Probably depends on the time and way the occupation goes, or if they ever have any intention to really make them part of the empire or something
Also, I think the Romans did “romanization” on people
So you realize I tottally said they didn't so right? Just only when convient for them and or important [Ceaser] folks wanted it. Of course ossmois would convert some. As the Roman culture was objectively superior to those around them. As demonstrated by them stomping on everyone around them for centuries.
Frankly Scotty that's a cop out and you know it. "Imperalism" in the modern context very very much. Refers directly and explicitly refers. To the European conquest of the world. Don't play bullshitsemantic games. Your better then that bro.
Yep I only addressed the Romans because Carl mentioned them. This thread is intended for European(16th century) empiress. Which are the only ones objected to by the mainstream.So not the Roman Empire then - but the British Empire, the French Empire, the Dutch and Portuguese trading networks, the Spanish looting and conquering spree across the New World, the German Empire, the Belgians...
A very mixed bag.
It's generally agreed that the Belgians were the worst.
"True" isn't relavant here in asking for opionons. Albiet justified opionons but still opionons. So basically taken in it's entiertiy across the entire timeframe including all nation's. Do you think it was a net positive negative or neutral.But what is "generally agreed" isn't always what is actually true. The Spanish accidentally brought Smallpox to the New World...
In terms of sheer bodycount, that probably knocks evil king Leopold into a corner...
On the other hand, the Aztecs had it coming to them. Pity about all the other people who weren't Aztecs.
Neutral. It's good to who benefits and bad to who doesn't benfit namely the ones on the receiving end.As a historical force do you consider imperalism. To be bad,neutral,or good? Please justify and or explain why you hold this position.
"True" isn't relavant here in asking for opionons. Albiet justified opionons but still opionons. So basically taken in it's entiertiy across the entire timeframe including all nation's. Do you think it was a net positive negative or neutral.
So you don't think colinized nation's gotanh benefits from it at all? No matter how much horror accompanied it.Neutral. It's good to who benefits and bad to who doesn't benfit namely the ones on the receiving end.
They certainly did the local who's a nobody in their homeland can get an opportunity to be big in the new.So you don't think colinized nation's gotanh benefits from it at all? No matter how much horror accompanied it.
16th-19th ie the age of colonialism. Opionons on specific periods or nation's are fine. Really though I intended to get an overview on the whole period.It should be noted that if we stick to the timeframe of the 16th-century, most of Africa does not enter the picture. The New World was where all the fun was - the Dark Continent got left until much later.
Neutral. When your country was the one being colonized. You cannot set aside the atrocities that your countrymen went through in the hands of the colonizers. Even if you acknowledge the good things.As a historical force do you consider imperalism. To be bad,neutral,or good? Please justify and or explain why you hold this position.