Was Colonisation A Necessity ?

Countries like Great Britain, France, Spain etc are often castigated for their colonial history. However maybe it was a necessity to go to continents like North and South America, Australia etc. The reason being that Europe could not have coped with the rise in population over the past 500 years and needed new land for it's people.
What are your opinions on this concept?

Population was only a part of the story.
Power, resources, wealth and good ol' fashioned desire to explore are the other reasons.
As we progress towards space it is all but a matter of time that we as humans settle other worlds
for the same reasons.

reply to post by alldaylong

I think your starting point should be to go back to the original foundation of the colonies and see what that tells you.
You can't really say that sixteenth and seventeenth century Europe had an excess of population which needed that kind of release.
Colonies were being founded for other reasons. E.g. New England, famously, because people wanted to escape the political and religious system ruling England at the time.
The desire to trade and protect trade was another important factor.

Colonisation is a natural human survival trait, to spread the species and dominant DNA as far and wide as possible to ensure the survival of the tribe/species.

This will also occur in the future, among the planets then to the stars.

Was colonisation a bad thing? Once thriving, civilised colonies for the most part are now impoverished hell-holes since the colonists were ousted, a real shame.

It was just something to do.

TheWrightWing
Once thriving, civilised colonies for the most part are now impoverished hell-holes since the colonists were ousted, a real shame.

I know. just look at the USA I feel so bad for them

Maybe if they stayed loyal they would have ended up like there better of Candian and Austrialian cousins

crazyewok

TheWrightWing
Once thriving, civilised colonies for the most part are now impoverished hell-holes since the colonists were ousted, a real shame.

I know. just look at the USA I feel so bad for them

Maybe if they stayed loyal they would have ended up like there better of Candian and Austrialian cousins

You mean like round bacon and riding kangaroos to work? Heck no!!



I will refrain from debating Eurocentrism
I will refrain from debating Eurocentrism

TheWrightWing
Colonisation is a natural human survival trait, to spread the species and dominant DNA as far and wide as possible to ensure the survival of the tribe/species.

This will also occur in the future, among the planets then to the stars.

Was colonisation a bad thing? Once thriving, civilised colonies for the most part are now impoverished hell-holes since the colonists were ousted, a real shame.

Colonies were NEVER ousted. They are still there to this very day in proxy fashion. They have their corporations there, stripping away the land of it's resources, they manipulate politics and societal governance by making sure to prop up and finance the greediest, most ignorant and vile individual they can find to rule the land, while making sure to make life as difficult as possible for the anyone who want to empower natives in their own land. They make sure that vile ruler is subservient to them, and willing to fashion the laws and general environment that best suits the colonists, in exchange for a little trinket of wealth, while the people get nothing.

Colonies are impoverished heel holes mainly because colonist nations still govern through corporations and small minded, evil, selfish rulers that they supply and give money to. That's why.

Colonization is not a natural human survival trait. You don't have to head over to other people's land, enslave them, kill them off to survive. Period. Colonization is a natural trait of want of POWER, CONTROL, and increase in WEALTH. The more real estate, the more bread you bring in.

And what makes DNA more dominant over the other?

reply to post by alldaylong

There was no over population problem back then, at all. That was not the reason these nations went out and conquered places.

Was colonization a necessity for who? even if over population was a problem, thatmeans it was neccesary for them to head out and own other people's sh*t? And of they didn't comply, slaughter them? Enslave them? Take there stuff and rape their women?

reply to post by alldaylong


I do not agree with this premise.

It seems to me that the drivers of colonisation were rather more to do with satisfying the ever escalating expectations of a people, toward a ruler. See, the larger the state, the more power it is expected to have. The more power a ruler has, the larger his territory is expected to be. When Rome expanded its power throughout Europe and across vast swathes of the rest of the ancient world, it did so without any tangible excuse.

It all started with a defensive posture, designed to protect against "barbarian" hordes, raiders and so on. However, when the leaders of Rome discovered how much honour and glory was heaped upon the military men, and their leaders after successful defenses of the territory they occupied, they started getting ideas. People getting a bit tetchy because the leadership are corrupt, backstabbing bastards? Lets torch some new territory, and move in on someone elses cabbage patch! The war effort was used predominantly by those who either knew no better, or knew well enough that a war footing takes up so much of a nations headspace, that they would forget a certain degree of dishonesty from the leadership, just as long as the riches kept pouring in, and the party kept getting harder.

In short, colonisation has always been a tool to control people already within the grasp of a system, whether it is an ideologically driven system, or not (and lets be sure to remember, that most examples have been). The only exceptions to that, were ones where a nation or warband, were lead by a stone cold sociopath with more of a bloodlust than a vampiric cannibal with further fetish for bladed objects, which leads to all manner of tear arsing around the place, mauling crap, but does not lead to anything long lasting.

And that is rather the problem with the concept of colonies and consolidation. Either, your empire grows to the point where it has so many enemies within its populous, and without, that it destroys itself, or it over reaches, and falls apart in a similar fashion. But the problems with the very idea of expansion have rather more to do with morality. If you can see another person or culture, and take their lives, their wealth, their land, and think yourself justified, surely you are not fit to lead, to rule, to pass judgement.

However, exploring a land is not the same as conquering it. For many thousands of years, peoples have traveled in lands they could never have concieved of before they left their birthplaces, and strode into the unending horizon. Not all of them have been the sort to plant a boot in every buttock that crossed their path, nor have all of them been nationalistic nutcases with an axe to grind about everything that did not originate in their homelands.

Now, I personally believe, that the potential for human expansion into the wider solar system, does not have the moral concerns that I would associate with an armed take over of an occupied territory. The reason I feel this way is as follows. Although I am no astronomer, I have researched the sky, its contents, and the available facts on each significant body of matter between here and the edge of the solar system.

Of those which might be suitable for colonisation by our species, not a single one of them has shown the slightest sign of carrying sentient lifeforms upon its surface. If, for example, Mars was found to conceal a sub-surface civilisation of some sort, then I would be utterly against putting a base on it, or even sending a manned mission, without some sort of dialogue being established between the residents, and ourselves, and only then if the communications allowed a positive connection to be created, based on mutual fascination and respect.

See, conflict amongst ourselves, well thats our business. Fighting over territory we have already scarred and maimed and broken? Our issue, and our choice as a species whether to engage with or not (and I think we can all agree that it would be better if we reeled in our nuts and stopped all that nonsense). But the moment we start crapping on another sentient species, is the moment we deserve to be hit with the biggest, most irradiated, most solid, deepest penetrating asteroid that the cosmic shooting range can blast off in our direction.

I believe that exploration should be done for its own sake, but of course, ideals that belong in a wonderous utopia, generally speaking do not work in practice. However, even if exploration is done with a financial interest at heart, it should at least be done peacefully, not forcefully. If we are to experience a future worth a damn, then we have to learn from the mistakes of the past, from the errors of hubris, from the danger of being decieved by our leaders. In reality, empires are built on false premises.

TrueBrit
reply to post by alldaylong

 

I do not agree with this premise.

It seems to me that the drivers of colonisation were rather more to do with satisfying the ever escalating expectations of a people, toward a ruler. See, the larger the state, the more power it is expected to have. The more power a ruler has, the larger his territory is expected to be. When Rome expanded its power throughout Europe and across vast swathes of the rest of the ancient world, it did so without any tangible excuse.

It all started with a defensive posture, designed to protect against "barbarian" hordes, raiders and so on. However, when the leaders of Rome discovered how much honour and glory was heaped upon the military men, and their leaders after successful defenses of the territory they occupied, they started getting ideas. People getting a bit tetchy because the leadership are corrupt, backstabbing bastards? Lets torch some new territory, and move in on someone elses cabbage patch! The war effort was used predominantly by those who either knew no better, or knew well enough that a war footing takes up so much of a nations headspace, that they would forget a certain degree of dishonesty from the leadership, just as long as the riches kept pouring in, and the party kept getting harder.

In short, colonisation has always been a tool to control people already within the grasp of a system, whether it is an ideologically driven system, or not (and lets be sure to remember, that most examples have been). The only exceptions to that, were ones where a nation or warband, were lead by a stone cold sociopath with more of a bloodlust than a vampiric cannibal with further fetish for bladed objects, which leads to all manner of tear arsing around the place, mauling crap, but does not lead to anything long lasting.

And that is rather the problem with the concept of colonies and consolidation. Either, your empire grows to the point where it has so many enemies within its populous, and without, that it destroys itself, or it over reaches, and falls apart in a similar fashion. But the problems with the very idea of expansion have rather more to do with morality. If you can see another person or culture, and take their lives, their wealth, their land, and think yourself justified, surely you are not fit to lead, to rule, to pass judgement.

However, exploring a land is not the same as conquering it. For many thousands of years, peoples have traveled in lands they could never have concieved of before they left their birthplaces, and strode into the unending horizon. Not all of them have been the sort to plant a boot in every buttock that crossed their path, nor have all of them been nationalistic nutcases with an axe to grind about everything that did not originate in their homelands.

Now, I personally believe, that the potential for human expansion into the wider solar system, does not have the moral concerns that I would associate with an armed take over of an occupied territory. The reason I feel this way is as follows. Although I am no astronomer, I have researched the sky, its contents, and the available facts on each significant body of matter between here and the edge of the solar system.

Of those which might be suitable for colonisation by our species, not a single one of them has shown the slightest sign of carrying sentient lifeforms upon its surface. If, for example, Mars was found to conceal a sub-surface civilisation of some sort, then I would be utterly against putting a base on it, or even sending a manned mission, without some sort of dialogue being established between the residents, and ourselves, and only then if the communications allowed a positive connection to be created, based on mutual fascination and respect.

See, conflict amongst ourselves, well thats our business. Fighting over territory we have already scarred and maimed and broken? Our issue, and our choice as a species whether to engage with or not (and I think we can all agree that it would be better if we reeled in our nuts and stopped all that nonsense). But the moment we start crapping on another sentient species, is the moment we deserve to be hit with the biggest, most irradiated, most solid, deepest penetrating asteroid that the cosmic shooting range can blast off in our direction.

I believe that exploration should be done for its own sake, but of course, ideals that belong in a wonderous utopia, generally speaking do not work in practice. However, even if exploration is done with a financial interest at heart, it should at least be done peacefully, not forcefully. If we are to experience a future worth a damn, then we have to learn from the mistakes of the past, from the errors of hubris, from the danger of being decieved by our leaders. In reality, empires are built on false premises.

Perfectly put, Truebrit.

reply to post by Advantage


We do not all ride kangaroos. Just most of us.
Some of us have giant koala bears too.
Such a shame they don't have air conditioning on the kangaroos. At least in winter we can just hop in the front pouch. We don't need keys either. So yeah we mostly have kangaroos take us everywhere

Not a necessity, but an inevitability.

I suppose you're talking about the European assault on the rest of the world that began around 1500 and went on until there wasn't any land left worth the grabbing. But empires have existed all through history. Just about any nation that could win itself an empire, did. And if you think about it, all human settlements, apart from the very first, were founded by colonists from somewhere else.

The motives behind imperialism put forward by TrueBrit are not wrong, but I think the real impulse is deeper and more atavistic than they suggest. The genetic explanation proposed by TheWrightWing is rather simplistic, but there may be a truth hidden inside it: territorial competition among animals is ultimately about ensuring your genes survive and prosper, at the expense of the next guy's if necessary. Among humans, conquest is traditionally followed by rape, is it not? European imperialists spread their genes all over the world; I can personally attest to this, being an Asian with three European great-grandparents.

As the citizen of a former British colony, born just ten years after independence, my views on imperialism are somewhat mixed. My poor country has not been improved by self-government; rather the contrary. Of course, many of our present ills have their origins in the colonial era, but the benefits of modern civilisation that we enjoy today can also be traced back to that period.

We mustn't forget that European imperialism spread the products of the revolution in thought known as the Enlightenment round the world. The benefits were unevenly and often unfairly distributed, and still are; but even that is better than nothing. I am a man of of the East, but I acknowledge the debt that everyone alive today owes to modern civilisation — which is Western civilisation.

crazyewok

TheWrightWing
Once thriving, civilised colonies for the most part are now impoverished hell-holes since the colonists were ousted, a real shame.

I know. just look at the USA I feel so bad for them

Maybe if they stayed loyal they would have ended up like there better of Candian and Austrialian cousins

The American colonists were not ousted, a vital detail you ignored. The United States is proof that colonisation is about survival of the dominant DNA trait, that works. As well it should.

bigman88

Colonisation is a natural human survival trait, to spread the species and dominant DNA as far and wide as possible to ensure the survival of the tribe/species.

This will also occur in the future, among the planets then to the stars.

Was colonisation a bad thing? Once thriving, civilised colonies for the most part are now impoverished hell-holes since the colonists were ousted, a real shame.

Colonies were NEVER ousted. They are still there to this very day in proxy fashion.

Colonization is not a natural human survival trait.

And what makes DNA more dominant over the other?

Many colonists absolutely were ousted for the most part around the world, and the majority of those former colonies are now impoverished hell holes. Careful what you wish for.

Everything that drives humans to do what they do can be traced back to survival instinct. Spreading your DNA via colonisiation ensures your people's genetics and culture survive, plainly.

Need evidence? Look at the descendents of successful colonies of the recent past. Look at the UK, how much has their colonisation efforts shaped the world we know today? Are you saying this is insignificant? The United States, in 200 years rose to become the dominant influence in technology and culture for the entire world.

The DNA that produces people who are more technologically advanced are more dominant, a process of natural selection. If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with evolution.

reply to post by TheWrightWing

The United States is proof that colonisation is about survival of the dominant DNA trait, that works. As well it should.

Complete nonsense. The American colonists were genomically identical to the British from whom they liberated themselves, and from whom they sprang.

Evolutionary biology does not support social-Darwinist, racist ideas. Neither does it favour the moronic theses of Ayn Rand.

TheWrightWing

bigman88

Colonisation is a natural human survival trait, to spread the species and dominant DNA as far and wide as possible to ensure the survival of the tribe/species.

This will also occur in the future, among the planets then to the stars.

Was colonisation a bad thing? Once thriving, civilised colonies for the most part are now impoverished hell-holes since the colonists were ousted, a real shame.

Colonies were NEVER ousted. They are still there to this very day in proxy fashion.

Colonization is not a natural human survival trait.

And what makes DNA more dominant over the other?

Many colonists absolutely were ousted for the most part around the world, and the majority of those former colonies are now impoverished hell holes. Careful what you wish for.

Everything that drives humans to do what they do can be traced back to survival instinct. Spreading your DNA via colonisiation ensures your people's genetics and culture survive, plainly.

Need evidence? Look at the descendents of successful colonies of the recent past. Look at the UK, how much has their colonisation efforts shaped the world we know today? Are you saying this is insignificant? The United States, in 200 years rose to become the dominant influence in technology and culture for the entire world.

The DNA that produces people who are more technologically advanced are more dominant, a process of natural selection. If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with evolution.

edit on 23-11-2013 by TheWrightWing because: damn quote tags

edit on 23-11-2013 by TheWrightWing because: (no reason given)

I'm sorry to say this TheWrightWing, you are very wrong.

There is absolutely nothing to substantiate that populations with advanced technology have "dominant" DNA. There is no correlation. If you think this, then i guess you can say that the early Sumerians and Egyptians had superior DNA, because they were the first to invent modern mathematics, metallurgy, political debate, societal structuring, etc... but i guess that doesn't apply to your thinking now, does it?

Or what about those supposedly superior races who get their asses kicked trying to invade primitive, inferior people using sticks and stones? What does that say.

There is no scientific proof for evolution, at all.

If you do your research, you would see that most African nations are controlled by the Rothschild owned central bank, or have large US or European corporations manipulating the laws and finances of the country through greedy, selfish rulers they put in power.

But we should all know better than to even bother debating with a eugenicist like yourself. I don't want to call you an idiot, and i won't.

Colonization has nothing to do with survival of a species. It is all about power, control, wealth and influence.

You are either a troll, or a racist eugenicist.