# Humanities & Anthropology > History & Civilisations >  Which form of colonialism was the worst ?

## Maciamo

Inevitably, the discussions about Japan's invasion of East Asia has led some people to criticise Europe's own colonial past. 

Not all European countries were colonial powers, although most Western European countries have tried to establish colonies in the Americas (notable failed attempts include some German princedoms and Sweden). It is also important to remember that the borders of present countries do not match the countries of the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th or even early 20th century. Germany and Italy did not exist as countries until the late 19th centuries, for example. 

In my understanding, the most brutal European colonisation was that of Central and South America by Spain in the 16th and 17th centuries. This colonisation happened at a time of terror in Europe, especially in Spain and the Spanish Netherlands with the Spanish Inquisition. Spain had also just completed the reconquista over the Muslims. It is in this context that the conquistadores left for the Americas and conquer the Aztec and Inca empires. That just a few hundreds of them managed to conquer an empire of millions of people can be explained mainly by the spread of Eurasian diseases such as smallpox, syphillis or influenza that ravaged the local Amerindian populations. The Spaniards just had to walk to the Aztec and Inca capitals almost without a fight, as people were dying from smallpox everywhere around. 

The colonisation of the Caribbean was more properly violent, as the Spaniards quickly decided to kill anybody who didn't want to convert to Christianity. This religious and brutal colonisation continued well into the 17th century in all Latin America, and is epistomised in the film The Mission. This was probably the most brutal form of European colonisation ever.

Another extremely brutal and more recent (although much less known) colonisation happened in Congo from 1876 to 1907, when Belgian king Leopold II acquired a huge portion of Central Africa as his personnal domain, which he called theCongo Free State. Millions of Africans died due to the harsh treatment inflicted by Leopold's contractors. When this became known in Belgium, the public scandal it caused forced Leopold to cede his private domain of Congo to the Belgian state, which formed the Belgian Congo. Leopold died the next year and was booed at his funeral (one of the few European monarch to get this dubbious priviledge). Quoting from Wikipedia, "The Belgian administration might be most charitably characterized as paternalistic colonialism". It was certainly a huge contrast with Leopold's rule. 

The British, French and Dutch colonisations span over a long period of time and on all continents, so it is difficult to assess which was better or worse. 
The early English and Dutch colonisations share in common that they were mostly commercial, through such independent organisations as the British East India Company and Dutch East India Company. The French also had theirs, but most of their colonisation of New France in America was directly sponsored by the king.

Just looking at the 17th and early 18th-century Americas, I'd say that the French did a better job, as independent explorer and fur-traders negotiated and dealt in a fairly peaceful ways with the Amerindians, while the British were very actively importing black slaves from Africa to the Caribbeans and North America.

From the late 18th to early 20th century though, the British had a more enlighened way of dealing with the local populations.

Overall my impression is that the British did the best job in treating the local population, which may explain why the British Commonwealth of Nations (heir of the British Empire) still exists, and Britain has kept relatively good relations with its former colonies (with only a few exceptions).

*Who managed most efficiently their colonies ?*

I also wonder why, looking at one region of the globe, British colonies have generally prospered more after the independence than French or Dutch ones. 
In East Asia, ex-British colonies like Hong Kong, Singapore or Malaysia are thriving, while ex-French and Dutch colonies (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia) are not. The comparison between Malaysia and Indonesia is interesting, as both countries share the same official language, the same majority of Muslims, the same climate, even share the island of Borneo, but Malaysia is so much richer and more developed than Indonesia. 

In Africa, ex-British colonies like Nigeria, Kenya, Tanzania, Namibia, Botswana and South Africa are also doing better than almost any other countries in Black Africa. Only the much smaller former Spanish colony of Guinea Equatorial (an African Singapore), and the ex-French colonies of Gabon and Senegal can be said to be doing as well.

I wonder whether this is due to a different style of colonisation or to other causes, such as the character of the local people, the environment or just chance. I'd rather go for the first choice.

*American colonialism & migrations*

Looking at American colonialism, there is usually not much brutality because it started late and was limited to Puerto Rico, Hawaii, the Phillippines and a few Pacific islands. They are still part of the US except for the Phillippines 9well it's debatable  :Poh:  ). 

I am not quite sure whether the acquisition of the US mainland over the Native Indians should be considered as colonialism. Like with other settlement colonies (Canada, Australia...), this is quite different from European colonialism in Africa or Asia, as the main purpose was to live there and make the country prosper, not just use it for commercial or political purposes. It's not more justificable, but it is more like a migration of population than properly colonialism. It's the same as the Turks invasion and settlement of the Byzantine Empire, the Germanic/Viking invasions of Europe, the Chinese ethnic expansion from North-East China in ancient times to the whole of modern China, including Tibet, Xinjiang or Manchuria. It is also the same as the Aryan invasion of India 5000 years ago, or the Yayoi invasion of Japan from Korea 2300 years ago.

It is therefore normal that migration countries like the USA, Canada, Australia or NZ should be more open to immigration from anywhere around the world than other countries. It is their way of admitting their past mistakes and share their conquest with the world. I seriously doubt that India or Japan would accept masses of immigrants under the pretext that they themselves invaded the country 5000 or 2300 years ago.

*Japanese colonialism*

As for Japanese colonialsim, it can be divided in 5 categories. 

1) Korea was more an extension of Japan than a colony. I would compare it to how Ireland was ruled by England. The English tried to eradicate Irisg language (and culture) by prohibiting the use of Gaelic from the 18th century, and teaching only English at school. Ireland was directly governed from London. The situation was very similar in Korea. The Japanese imposed the teaching of Japanese, and the country was ruled from Tokyo as a part of Japan itself.

2) Taiwan is similar to Korea, except that the Japanese rule was less severe, and the island was more considered as a holiday or retirement colony. It's probably closer to Gibraltar, Malta or Cyprus's relations to Britain.

3) Manchuria was a protectorate (or "puppet-state"). Officially it was independent and ruled by the "last emperor of China" Pu Yi, but the Japanese kept troops there and had complete control. It was more similar to Egypt's relationship to Britain or Morocco's relationship to France in the late 19th and first half of 20th century.

4) China was not really a colony. China was occupied and ruled by the Japanese Imperial Army during the Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945). It is considered as a war and not a colonial period, as the Japanese government or civilians were not properly involved - and 8 years is too short to be called a colony. There was no commerce and the Army was more preoccupied to destroy the country than use it adroitly for their country's profit, as was the norm in the 20th-century colonisation of Western powers. I would rather compare China's occupation to Germany's occupation of Eastern Europe.

Some Chinese cities had previously been colonised by Japan, France, Germany, Britain, Russia and the US. This was the more typical Western commercial and political colonialism of the time. The purpose was to gain trading rights and priviledges and somewhat control politics in the colonised country, without replacing the government. The same system was established in India by the UK, but to the whole country, not just the main cities like in China. 

5) Japan's brief occupation of South-East Asia was halfway between the typical Western colonialism of the time and its military invasion of China. Let's say that it was a military invasion and occupation, but that the Army did not rampage as much as in China, apart from a few particularily horrible massacres in Singapore or the Philippines.

----------


## bossel

Good & comprehensive overview, I think. Not much to add.





> The Spaniards just had to walk to the Aztec and Inca capitals almost without a fight, as people were dying from smallpox everywhere around.


In case of the Aztecs, it was not quite so easy. They put up a good fight. Without the help of the peoples conquered & oppressed by the Aztec empire, the Spaniards probably wouldn't have succeeded.
The Inca put up a fight as well, but too late. One of the main reasons that they were rather easily defeated was the fact that they were too naive in dealing with the Spaniards.





> 1) Korea was more an extension of Japan than a colony. I would compare it to how Ireland was ruled by England. The English tried to eradicate Irisg language (and culture) by prohibiting the use of Gaelic from the 18th century, and teaching only English at school. Ireland was directly governed from London. The situation was very similar in Korea.


Good comparison, actually. Didn't think of that before. 
But IMO there is one point where the Japanese treated Korea better than England treated Ireland: infrastructure. For the most time the English only exploited Ireland without any investment, while Japan tried to establish a certain infrastructure in Korea (for which purpose is another question).

Anyway, I think, your original question is hard to answer since colonisation methods varied widely, depending on place & time. In one place you had massacres & at the same time another colony might have got a better system of education, or similar.

Colonisation in & of itself is despicable, though, even if it has some positive effects in the long run. Whether we should consider the expansion of the USA, Russia or China differently, I don't know, though I doubt it. Colonies can develop into expansionism, there is no clear line to draw.

----------


## ^ lynx ^

Roman colonization was the most cruel. Crucifixions, gladiators, christians turned into food for lions...

And regarding Spanish Colonization some will may want to read this:




> The Curse of _the Black Legend_
> 
> By TONY HORWITZ
> Published: July 9, 2006
> 
> COURSING through the immigration debate is the unexamined faith that American history rests on English bedrock, or Plymouth Rock to be specific. Jamestown also gets a nod, particularly in the run-up to its 400th birthday, but John Smith was English, too (he even coined the name New England).
> So amid the din over border control, the Senate affirms the self-evident truth that English is our national language; "It is part of our blood," Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, says. Border vigilantes call themselves Minutemen, summoning colonial Massachusetts as they apprehend Hispanics in the desert Southwest. Even undocumented immigrants invoke our Anglo founders, waving placards that read, "The Pilgrims didn't have papers."
> These newcomers are well indoctrinated; four of the sample questions on our naturalization test ask about Pilgrims. 
> 
> ...


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/op...09horwitz.html

----------


## Nicolas Peucelle

It seems very possible that the the northern american continent will be populated by a majority of american-indian-spanish Hispanic Population in less time to come, than it took the other Imigrants from europe to conquer the territory of the present day USA from the native indians.

----------


## Invictus_88

> Good & comprehensive overview, I think. Not much to add.


Perhaps, but there was no mention of the German colonies.

----------


## galychanyn

"Roman colonization was the most cruel. Crucifixions, gladiators, christians turned into food for lions..."
I guess that Russian and Soviet colonisation was the worst one.

----------


## Jacker22

It's a well accepted fact that Blighty managed and respected her colonies better than any other nation. The Japanese and the Russians were the worst colonists.

----------


## buckley612

edit: double post

----------


## buckley612

"It is therefore normal that migration countries like the USA, Canada, Australia or NZ should be more open to immigration from anywhere around the world than other countries. It is their way of admitting their past mistakes and share their conquest with the world."

Unfortunately this sentiment is beginning to mean less and less here in the USA. Though I am partially for the new immigration bill, it may cause more problems than its worth. I would hate to see a new wave of discrimination begin to gain leverage with the people of America, who like to remain completely ignorant of the fact that this country was built with immigrants. 
Americans may not have been the worst colonists, but they are the worst hypocrites for setting their moral standards so high yet shamelessly falling short on many occasions. There would not be such an outcry against the slave trade, the injustices committed against the natives, and the discrimination of immigrants if we had not established ourselves as the "land of the free". At least other colonists did not hide behind a long term pretense of goodwill. The true motive of the Spaniards was obvious as soon as the first musket was fired, but this was not always the case in America.

----------


## LeBrok

> "It is therefore normal that migration countries like the USA, Canada, Australia or NZ should be more open to immigration from anywhere around the world than other countries. It is their way of admitting their past mistakes and share their conquest with the world."


 I don't think the borders are open to emigrants from guilt and shame. There were always open, but mostly to British and to all Europeans afterwords. Now in the new spirit of global village and equality for all races, they are open to all. That's all.
Actually the matter got reversed, the borders are closed to most Europeans that has built these countries, and wide open to the poorest of the poor from other continents. The poorest are usually not the smartest cookies in the jar, and they come from different cultures with a baggage full of very tribal thinking, understanding (not understanding), and acting. Many come here for the stuff and social programs, ignoring or even ridiculing host country's values, which are based on personal freedoms, democracy, tolerance, equality.
That's pretty much the beginning of the end. This must be one of critical reasons why empires collapse. 
In middle stages of life of empires the doors are open to all citizens from conquered countries. Life is always better in capital of empire (money, business, commerce). People flock in looking for a better life, especially from the poorest regions of empire. Add few thousands of slaves brought in too.
After few generations it changes the character of empire, values, even lowers average IQ of population and ruling family/class. The politics and management gets worse, economy sucks, civil unrests, smaller army, not enough weapons, etc, and collapse.
It pretty much explains a slow demise (century by century) of Roman Empire, and I bet many others.

----------


## buckley612

Empires and countries collapse when they are not strong enough to hold onto core societal values in the face of adversity. A nation full of conviction will not flinch when people with "tribal" ideals begin to pour over the border. Instead, a country that is well established will be able to influence surrounding nations for the better. Rome lost all its charisma, not because of outside influence but because its' own people became too stagnant to produce good leadership.

----------


## Richard Coyle

> It seems very possible that the the northern american continent will be populated by a majority of american-indian-spanish Hispanic Population in less time to come, than it took the other Imigrants from europe to conquer the territory of the present day USA from the native indians.


I agree that at present it sure looks that way, sadly. I have never agreed with our idea of open immigration. Rather than sharing the land plunder taken from native Americans, we should have attempted to make some things right with them by going back to the treaties. Then the NAs could have decided who they wanted to admit into their own lands. Besides, most of the Mexican American natives ( except some exiles from the southwest) are not the same as the Lakota/Cheyenne or other northern Indian peoples both east and west. So in an ethical sense the Mexican invasion is no more legitimate than the Anglo invasion was.

----------


## LeBrok

Sounds good on paper Richard. Doing so you would revive the tribal wars though. Native Americans were not a one nation/country. These tribes were fighting each other, and there was no peaceful coexistence (well few years here and there). 
To determine what tribe gets what land, what people are the true blood, and how long they lived in certain area (a thousands or maybe only hundreds), you would open the biggest Pandora box in history of North America. Who is qualified to even decide in this matter?
Besides, it is not all bad, some tribes live in peace now for 100s of years, some of them only survived and were not killed off by stronger tribes, that otherwise would happen.

----------


## Richard Coyle

> Sounds good on paper Richard. Doing so you would revive the tribal wars though. Native Americans were not a one nation/country. These tribes were fighting each other, and there was no peaceful coexistence (well few years here and there). 
> To determine what tribe gets what land, what people are the true blood, and how long they lived in certain area (a thousands or maybe only hundreds), you would open the biggest Pandora box in history of North America. Who is qualified to even decide in this matter?
> Besides, it is not all bad, some tribes live in peace now for 100s of years, some of them only survived and were not killed off by stronger tribes, that otherwise would happen.


Well said LeBrok; I agree with you. We should have done better but didn't; to go back today and attempt to correct the past would indeed open Pandora's box. Canada, I believe, was more intelligent in it's dealings with NAs than we in the USA were.

----------


## Bogdan

Without a doubt it was the ottoman turks no one was as sick or perverted as them especially with their system of sexual slavery, janissaries and the fact that today turkey is still the largest slaver in the world...

----------


## Mikester

Good summary Maciamo.

An interesting fact about the colonisation of India. There was only about 1000 brits administrating the whole sub continent, with off course some solders. They obviously worked smart with locals to get away with this, barring the occasional incident of brutality.

----------


## Canek

spaniards were the worst. look at the british colonies... they are rich. all spain leave behind to us was poverty and misery. thank you spain. we would be better if england conquer us in the past.

----------


## Antigone

Not necessarily Canek, there was no uniform policly by which Britain governed all of it's colonies. They were governed according to the political and ethnic situation of each, so we do have places like India where most seemed to profit in one form or another but there are also places who suffered badly. Ireland suffered 800yrs of abuse and the Irish were ever kept grindingly poor, there were periods of extreme brutality and starvation in Scotland, particularly the Highlands and the indigenous population of Tasmania was completely exterminated. 

We'll never know for sure how the British would have treated South America, perhaps they would have been worse than the Spanish? I think the difference has only been in the last century or so, it has been US policies and interference which have kept SA in poverty and not enabled it to develope in line with other countries who are as equally rich in natural resources as South America.

----------


## iapetoc

well All said about many colonial state,

But what about USA?

the Hawai colony!
the open plain culture of the Indians

surely they did kill not Indians, but they killed their buffalo,
surely did not massacre Indians, they let whiskey to do that.
well they did not exterminate indians,
simply they put them in Farms or camps like Hitler did in WW2 and do not feed them, (at least no Gas chambers)

I wonder why conquest of the west is not considered colonisation,

Also about the soldiers of Holy Russia and what they did in Alaska people,
once I read an article ' God is very high, and Tsar (Car) is very far'
talking about the islands of Alaska,

----------


## Cimmerianbloke

> Good summary Maciamo.
> 
> An interesting fact about the colonisation of India. There was only about 1000 brits administrating the whole sub continent, with off course some solders. They obviously worked smart with locals to get away with this, barring the occasional incident of brutality.


A blatant contradiction with their politics in Ireland...

----------


## Yorkie

It is impossible to compile a league table of historical atrocities. However, this emphasis upon the British surprises and amuses me when one considers the record of both Germany and Japan in WW2. Nothing ever done in the name of Britain comes even near the scale of colonial atrocities committed by the Japanese Army and Navy in the late 1930s to 1945. 

If one of the previous posters thinks the Ottoman Turks were 'perverse', let him read accounts of the torture methods of the Japanese Kempetei in WW2, or the infamous two week-long 'Rape of Nanking' by Japanese soldiery in China.

Read Lord Russell of Liverpool's 'The Knights of Bushido', an account of Japanese War Crimes in WW2, and you may begin to comprehend the staggeringly vast and depraved nature of Japanese colonialist barbarism. Believe me, the British and the Turks were only playing at it in comparison..

----------


## Antigone

> A blatant contradiction with their politics in Ireland...


Yes and no. The British didn't have one overall policy by which they governed their various colonies, they were never that organised. lol. Each place was governed according to it's own political and cultural climate, so we have places like Ireland (and Scotland early on) who had it fairly bad under British rule whereas other places (like India) had it comparatively easy. 

But I agree with Yorkie, there is too much fixation on the British here. As colonists and empire builders go they were not the worst, possibly just the largest to date.

----------


## Yorkie

> Yes and no. The British didn't have one overall policy by which they governed their various colonies, they were never that organised. lol. Each place was governed according to it's own political and cultural climate, so we have places like Ireland (and Scotland early on) who had it fairly bad under British rule whereas other places (like India) had it comparatively easy. 
> 
> But I agree with Yorkie, there is too much fixation on the British here. As colonists and empire builders go they were not the worst, possibly just the largest to date.


 Thankyou for that acknowledgement, my Greek friend.  :Good Job:

----------


## Mzungu mchagga

Also Englishmen sometimes suffer as prisoners of her majesty.  :Wink:

----------


## Yorkie

> Also Englishmen sometimes suffer as prisoners of her majesty.


The expression is 'Subjects of the Queen'. We have two Queens actually. One is Elizabeth the Second [Saxe-Coburg-Gotha], and the other is Elton John.

----------


## Mzungu mchagga

> The expression is 'Subjects of the Queen'. We have two Queens actually. One is Elizabeth the Second [Saxe-Coburg-Gotha], and the other is Elton John.


 :Laughing:

----------


## Franco

Spanish colonisation was the most cruel? This is bullshit and black legend propaganda. I thought that thanks to improvement of literacy levels and the widespread difussion of information on the Internet nobody believed it anymore, but apparently there seem to be die hard black legend followers. To prove my point about Spain not being the most barbaric colonial power, look at how many brown people there are in South America and then compare it to USA or Canada. The most cruel colonisation was that of Britain and her American offspring. They physicially wiped out entire nations. Not only in America but in Australia too. I'm not saying Spanish colonisation was modelic, but indeed it was more lenient than the British, French , Dutch and Portuguese ones (for example the Portuguese controlled the black slaves trade. They collected them in Africa from the Arabs or rival tribes and shipped to America). Also there is big contradiction here, if most of the casualties among the natives was due to smallpox brought by the Spanish, then how come are they responsible of those deaths?

----------


## Canek

If you want to see who was the most cruel colonisation you only have to watch at the spanish traditions... I don't see english or portuguese killing bulls in a horrid public spectacle.

----------


## moshe

Opening up to immigration does not equal admiting to wrong doing. Many other brutal empires have brought people back from conquered countries. The Mongols would bring back many scientists, slaves, and fighters from conquered lands. When you look at today's immigration patterns, immigrants to the west are used largely to work minimum wage jobs to serve the white bourgeoisie. The refugees are actually people who fought for the west. Therefore, refugees aren't actually given that status out of the kindness of westerners hearts. If you fought on the side of the west in the Vietnam war, you were given a green card to the west. This doesn't mean that they're just giving away citizenship to anyone who applies. They allow these refugees in because they have done something for the west. A lot of immigration is also skilled. So while many westerners don't actually study hard in school, they bring in immigrants who do, and those are the ones who fill the job of engineers, doctors, etc. If you have a look around the Silicon valley, you see a lot of foreigners. We could argue that if it wasn't for foreign immigrants, the Silicon valley wouldn't even exist. Even if you look at the phd programs in the west, alot of the students are also foreign. As far as Russia being the worst colonial master, I call cap. I have talked to many Ukranians, Moldovans who are pro Russian, and have fond memories of the USSR. One of them even worked for an America company. Not to mention that 70% of the Soviets actually opted to stay in

----------


## moshe

Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaysia's "thriving" economies has nothing to do with British management. If that were the case, then India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh would also be thriving but why aren't they? Plenty of African countries also not doing very well, despite being victims of British colonialism. Hong Kong thrives because of China. For a long time, freight from the mainland would go through Hong Kong, allowing Hong Kong to collect a lot of agent fees, whereas today, it goes through various Chinese cities. Hong Kong is where also alot of Chinese bourgeoisie went after the liberation of the mainland, therefore, the bourgeoisie would've brought a lot of money into it after 1949. The same for Taiwan. Essentially, they tried to take all of China's wealth with them. Hong Kong is the center of a lot of anti Chinese activity. Since China doesn't want trouble in Hong Kong, it pumps money into it, almost like a protection fee, as it believes a thriving economy could shield it from unrest. The west pumps money into HK because they can use them as a pawn against China as you saw with the recent protests, riots, etc. Hong Kong also serves as a very important intelligence collection point. So they're getting paid both ways. Singapore is also used as a pawn against China as you can see with their military partnerships with the west. Singapore also serves as an important location for shipping, but that was given to them due to their pro western, and far right political leanings. Militarily, Singapore can be used as a base to strike China from, or at the very least stop Chinese shipping traffic, so that's really why they've been made to be more important than they actually are. Furthermore, countries like Singapore are given concesions by the America, and has very little to do with who ruled them before hand. Malaysia actually has value to it. They are located in a very important place. The Malaca strait is an important location for ships to pass through and they've been able to thrive because of that. Malaysia can also be used as a choke point for Chinese shipping. Therefore, I'd argue it wouldn't matter if they were conquered by the British, Aztecs, or Mongols, they still would be thriving.

----------

