I have created this blog in order to post my comments and thoughts regarding a class I am taking called Asia and the Modern World. A brief bio of the author: I am a United States military veteran of 18+ years and extremely devoted to my country and its causes around the world. That will instantly make me unpopular in many of my views especially on a topic such as this that requires me to explain why I feel colonialism around the globe, although not popular to those who were colonized, was extremely beneficial in the long run. I don't feel apologetic about it, although mainstream media and the current political correctness of our global population will try to bully into feeling so. Colonialism has worked and failed for many; however, for the countries with the fortitude to do something about their situation it will be shown to be an overwhelming success. The United States, one of the first in the world to be colonized is a classic example. On two occasions (1776, and 1812), it was pushed into battle against the world's premier fighting force and although out manned, outgunned, and outmaneuvered on most occasions, banded together long enough to become independent and a global force to be reckoned with. As I go through this course, I hope to see this theory of mine proven with the countries of the Asian Pacific - the subject of our first week of reading.
I more than welcome all comments, positive, negative. In past classes, I have done very well in writing from the other side's point of view. I look forward to writing this blog (my first blog) and seeing where the posts and responses take me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well, a provocative statement to begin the course! How might a country's future have been changed with colonialism? Might it have developed in a different way that would have better used its resources, etc. that would not have resulted in it being a "third world" country today?
ReplyDeleteHow might the US have fared had it spent another 150 years under colonial rule?
I took American Revolution through AMU a few semesters ago and actually pondered this question. At that time Sam Adams was spinning up the propaganda machine through the Sons of Liberty, the American colonies were really not in that bad of a situation. Yes the British Crown had imposed new taxes; however, it was because they had spent a sizeable amount of money protecting the colonies from the French and Indian threat. Colonists had enjoyed several perks of being under the reign of the world's most industrial nation witht the best naval protection on the globe. I believe in theory that the American colonies could have thrived under the British crown; however, the very nature of the people who came to the "New World" would never have been under distant rule for that many years. Unlike the indiginous populations who were colonized, the American colonies were populated by people with high hopes and dreams of starting a new life. Also, with the many different nations that were forming together in the New World, it would have been difficult to maintain loyalty across the ocean to one Crown. The Statist theory sheds some light on this perdicament as the evolution of a people who ventured to find a new life and be their own boss. Once they tested the waters of freedom and found they were able to match up with the British (with French assistance of course), they set the example for all the other countries who would be colonized in the 18th and 19th centuries.
ReplyDelete