""worst" colonial power" Topic

So I don't want it to get to negativ. But we had a "best/least assholy" Colonial power.
So I thought we'd have the reverse. I do this mostly because of my lack of knowlage. I have a very loose grip on British, French and American colonial stuff.
But No knowlage on, Belgian, Dutch, German, Spanish(besides the obvrious conqest parts in the 16th century) or Italian.

Like the "best" I think we should look at the whole? both the conqest, "ocopation" and then how the handled loosing their colonies.

The only thing I can contribuate to, and its VERY superficial. Is that generaly the Belgian African colonies has had more problems then the Britsh?

I think the Belgians pretty much scoop this one for the Congo but no one's hands are entirely clean.

Belgians have a "poor" reputation, to be sure. Colonialism starts out bad, but some countries have certainly done more harm than others. Just hard to defend the concept in a modern context.

link

Chalfant

I was thinknig spesificaly about rwanda to. Which I assume has some of the same problems as Congo(s)

Rwanda is complicated… I don't think the Belgians were in Rwanda until after WWI (I think Germany was before that), so that would be when Belgium began to clean up their colonial rule (somewhat). But still not good.

Chalfant

Traditionally it is the Belgians who cop it as 'worst colonial power' – the nineteenth century type of colonialism anyway.

On a slightly broader definition of 'colonialism' I am sure the Aztecs, Incas, Tasmanians, Heroro and Armenians would disagree about the Belgians being the worst.

It wasn't much fun being ruled by some of the pre early modern Empires either.

Ghengis Khan et al supposedly reduced the Chinese population by 60 million, or 50%. And as for Carthage….

The Belgian Force Publique and the Congo were awful. I think the Italians in Ethiopia were more incompetent. Look up Adowa 1896 on Wiki or the MAA Osprey for The Armies of Adoba Campaign 1896. Emperor John said, "We have invaded by an army of moles. It's time to eliminate them!"

The OOP book, "Arrogant Armies: Great Military Disasters and the Generals Who Led Them" by Perry has a great selection on Adowa.

By God, what a disaster, but I can't justify buying the figures and painting them up in order to game it. However, I have Colonial Belgians, Germans, and British armies for The Sword and the Flame and the Sword in Africa…

Blake

Hunh. Well, wiki has something on that era in Rwanda…

link

And as for Carthage….

PBS aired a nice little documentary about this. A very thin trail, but a trail nonetheless:

link

Let's be a little careful here. Most of the atrocities in the Congo occurred when it was the personal possession of King Ludwig. To the Belgian Nation's credit, they attempted to clean up much of his mess after he was forced to give up the territory to the government.

If you want to demonstrate the evils of colonialism, Belgium is always the poster child, and rightly so. After more than fifty years of the Belgian Nation "cleaning up" there was not a single Congolese doctor or army officer--scarcely even a schoolteacher--when the Belgians bailed. The new government was darn near overrun by illiterate cannibals, and rightly so. Belgium picked up Rwanda and Burundi from Germany as spoils from WWI, and they STILL hate the Belgians there. When you consider Germany's behavior as a colonial power, that says something terrible about Belgium.

It's perfectly true there is no empire--indeed no nation--with completely clean hands. But as a Western colonial power, Belgium makes everyone else look pretty good.

Belgium.

Did I read that many of the force publique Askari were cannibals?

The Germans were pretty bad in East Africa and the French not much better but the Belgians were in a different league.

Belgium though if we are including 20th Century colonial powers, then Japan would take the prize.

Spain.
Genocide of truly staggering proportions in the Americas, with entire cultures wiped out, a transatlantic slave trade bigger than that of all other nations put together, and it lasted for centuries.

Don';t forget the muslums with their theocracy of conversion or death. Plus their enslavement of women.

Depends on what you mean by worst. I would vote for the United States. Colonies were to provide the mother nation with certain goods and materials. IE you exploit the colony for the gain of the mother country. The US did it the other way around. We would pump money to build schools, fight disease, build roads, set up governments, train military forces ect. I don't think, as a nation, we never made a dime on that.

I agree with Belgium for the reasons Stated.
The Dutch were not much better. They lost several colonies early including New Amsterdam and South Africa. They did better in Asia.
The Swedes also lost early colonies. So their efforts is less easy to see.

US.

Native Americans virtually wiped out and betrayed over a whole series of treaties.

Belgians were pretty brutal.

King Leopold. Congo at its worse was his personal property (in good old classical liberal principles). It probably was the worse colonial enterprise in the 19th century.

Italy was fairly ok in Eritrea, and indeed from what I have read in the conflict literature the Italians are still popular there. They hate the Ethiopians more. They failed, like everyone else, in Albania, let a monster regime arise under their protection in Croatia, and tried some really hard core ethnic engineering in the Dodecanese. They were pretty murderous in Libya.

The Dutch colonies in what is Indonesia today had a terrible reputation in the 19th and 20th century.

The Egnlish (later US) and Spanish colonial enterprise in the Americas is also pretty bad as many have pointed out. Portuguese and French are marginally better.

The Japanese were pretty nasty in Taiwan. In Korea they became increasingly nasty. If they were not so racists they probably could had kept it in personal union with Japan, and under heavy influence.

The Russians in their conquest of the Caucasus committed substantial ethnic cleansing.

Stone Mtn.Minis:While I am not going to say those things are not bad, there is nothing specifically Muslim about either of those. Quite a number of Christian and non-Christian powers offered conversion or death and quite a lot of them were happy to enslave women, especially African (Spain, Portugal, England, France, hell even Prussia under the Great Elector got into that) or Gypsy(Romania) . Indeed consider the pretty crappy position of women in Roman Civil Law (de jure slaves to their husband or father who could kill them legally), or Ancient Greece (excepting Sparta, married women had many restrictions that would make the Saudis proud). So yeah, you need to find something uniquely Muslim to bash them with (no, not even slave soldiers). Perhaps the fact that they were willing to openly contravene the Quran a lot of times ? (then again the US openly contravened the Constitution in dealings with Native Americans, so yeah not unique).

If it's a matter of sheer scale, then Britain must be a winner. AND for the native populations of New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the United States, to this day we have never left and they have never achieved independence. On balance, whilst the Belgians deserve no credit, they at least vacated.

Belgians first popped into my head when I read the title, but it is hard to argue with the Spanish who essentially destroyed all the cultures they "colonized."

Mate, Maoris don't want independance here. Nor would they want us New Zealanders to leave. Its because of us they have the lives and things they love. Before us they were eating each other and brutally fighting while living in mud huts. What a stupid thing to say.

As a Belgian I have to agree with regret what Africa is concerned. On a worldwide level I have to agree with GarissonMiniatures.
The British did it more or less all over the world : smallpocs for the Indians (first biological warfare).
Town destruction, concentration camps (British invention), well poisoning, crop and livestock destruction in the second Boer War.
Chemical warfare in WWI, the Germans were not the only ones to use mustard gas.
And let's not forget India, Kenya (1953 and 1959) or Malaya (1948).
Power corrupts allways. That's why one should not be ignorant of history.

ehm….taking into account nowdays situation….where those supposed to be bad colonial powers so bad or bad at all if compared with those "democratic" new nations..including those with the Belgian legacy?
and..let's face the reality…was colonialism a bad thing?
link

"The first biological warfare"? "The first concentration camps"? LOOOL!

That's so precious.

There does seem to be a common perception that Empire = bad and Nation State = good, am not sure where this comes from. Yes I would agree in the 19th century that the actions of the Belgians in Congo count as really very bad.

If I compare it to the deliberate genocide carried out by the United States during the same time period I would have to conclude that the genocide was worse. I just don'y see though that as the US was nation building rather than Empire building that it somehow makes the genocide ok.

Why you don' T talk about British? Someone claim several tens of milions of victims only in India…

Portugal wasn't very good in Africa or India or the Spice Islands, but I think that it is definitely Belgium that is the worst.

KTravlos. You say that Japanese rule was fairly nasty in Taiwan and got increasingly nasty in Korea. For Korea, it is my understanding that Japanese rule started off pretty nasty and just got worse. Japanese rule in Taiwan was an interest of mine (odd I admit, but it keeps me off the streets) and from what I have read it is fairly benign. Any evidence to the contrary would be gratefully received.

A while ago I wrote a brief summary of Japanese rule of Taiwan – pasting in below. It was just to a friend so don't expect references but is a summation of what I found. Any comments of where I am wrong would be useful. I am not arguing Japanese rule was great of course but compared to other empires not that bad….

Japan annexes Taiwan even though they dont really want it – wanted Korea but Europeans would not have let them take it. First couple of years nothing but a desultory pacification campaign, which probably had all the violence and oppression that you would expect.

Then the Japanese decide they need to economically develop the island – in their own interest of course, using the lessons they learnt when they developed Japan itself 30 years earlier. So a land survey and land reform – giving ownership of the land to those that work it instead of the landlord class. Reform of the land tax system – making sure it is paid for all land – but because so much land was previously hidden from taxation (by landlord class) this means that the tax rate actually goes down and it is fairly and honestly collected. It is also fixed to encourage output and does not go up in good years to expropriate all the surplus production (as happened with rents before the Japanese takeover).

The public order system that is created is a mix of old style Chinese that people would recognise with a 'modern' Japanese police force, which does have a large amount of power without recourse to courts but the Japanese police were well paid and on the whole honest with little corruption.

There is large investment in infrastructure, rail, roads and irrigation. Also public investment in agricultural research stations to make recommendations on seeds, techniques and all that with publicly assisted Agricultural Association to spread the knowledge resulting in a rapid increase in yields.

In broad terms the Japanese invested in bringing the economy from a feudal to market economy – with great success. Allied this with efficient and honest government (against what went before, Provincial Ming government did not have the highest of reputations) probably meant the living standards for the majority of the population rose. It would have sucked to have been part of the appropriated feudal landlord class but I don't think we can cry to hard about that right?

OK, the motives for all this was to strengthen Japan and the development was lopsided – no industry was developed, Taiwan was kept agrarian with the only industry receiving development being sugar production but over all things got better for most people. They had no access to political power but most people hadn't before the Japanese take over so no change there then.

It wa the last ten years that were the worst. After military take over of the Japanese government it was decided that all colonials were now Japanese, with the responsibilities as real Japanese (no rights mind). This included the responsibility to basically serve the Emperor (which meant the military government) as it poured all its resources into the war. Japanese citizens had the duty to die for Japan if required, the colonists got treated worse than this…..

It was the last ten years were the Japanese Empire became 'an Empire of the Lash', with what is now my favorite name for a political entity the 'Greater East Asian Co 'Prosperity Sphere', which is even better than the 'Holy Roman Empire' for its basic dishonesty.

I wonder if there has ever been a study if there was much of a difference between how colonies run by private, for profit companies (such as King Leopold's Belgian Congo) and colonies run by nations, for the colonised? The impression I get is that colonies run by corporations had their shareholders in mind more than the welfare of the natives and could act horribly. Then again, the East India Company seems to have been well run and the Hudson's Bay Company in Canada depended on the First Nations and Metis to run it's operation.

"Then again, the East India Company seems to have been well run"

It certainly made a lot of money if that's what you mean. Otherwise it was extreme in its rapacity and huge numbers died one way or another. Interestingly at the time its Chief Opium Agent had a higher annual salary than the British Chancellor of the Exchequer. Then of course there are the opium wars. Grand larceny on an international scale really.

A colony is never run for the colonised it is run in the interests of the colonising power. Acting horribly goes with the territory, the natives resist and are massacred or conquered and relentlessly exploited. 'twas ever thus, the French in Canada were fairly benign – in the West Indies as vicious as the rest.

It is also difficult to disentangle Crown or State interests from private ones. The people who run the grand companies are often the people who run the state or who paid the monarch for an operating license.

On a slightly Devils Advocate angle: the Spanish had plenty of local help knocking off the Aztecs. When the local Empire raids all the neighboring political entities to haul off large numbers of captives to use as human sacrifices, they aren't going to win any popularity contests!

The Spanish were pretty bad, but a lot of the early damage wasn't really by direct action--bringing European diseases that the local population had no immunity to wasn't something they planned--or even understood.

Oh

But what you say goes to the root of my question of why are Empires seen as particularly bad?

'Acting horribly goes with the territory, the natives resist and are massacred or conquered and relentlessly exploited.'

Yes this is broadly true of Empires – for example the British Empire in India. But is it not just as true for the majority of people living in India before British rule under local rulers? Is it really better to be exploited by someone who is local? Or massacred by them if you resist?

Also bare in mind that most Empires ruled through local elites anyhow – so the people doing the actual oppressing are the same people that would have been doing the oppressing before the arrival of the foreign empire. This is true of British India for example. So much so that most of the inhabitants of India would not have really noticed any difference to their lives once they had acquired a foreign Empress (if they had even been aware of it).

The main difference they may have noticed is that the amount of wars that they had to endure, with all the death, rape disease, crop burning and general nastiness would have decreased to well, none, so rule by a foreign empire could have been seen by them as a blessing.

Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing that those nations doing the empire building were doing the people they were conquering a favour. I just don't see why a political entity that is called an Empire is any worse than one that isn't. Judge them by there actions and outcomes for the people living under their rule, rather than how they are labeled.

It seems Oh B, that inside the text box, your name is considered a profanity…..

Ottoman Turks

My father (mixed blood Cherokee) summed it up (probably not original) with the observation, "you lose the war you do not get to write the peace treaty."

Which, as an aside, makes that scum Talleyrand seem pretty effectively brilliant though clever might be more accurate.

The Hound

For what reason do you think the Ottoman Empire was particularly bad?

Concentration camps were a Spanish practice in the Cuban rebellion around 1894.

I think the Belgians get the nod – the Brits and Spanish did some pretty bad things as well but on balance I have to give them the nod

And the Spanish did have a lot of local help – as did the Brits

Belgians.

Native Americans virtually wiped out and betrayed over a whole series of treaties.

Only if you believe the leftist revisionists. There were probably more Amerinds alive in the lower 48 in 1900 than there had been in 1600. And the Amerinds were at least as enthusiastic at breaking treaties as the white men.

"Then again, the East India Company seems to have been well run"

It certainly made a lot of money if that's what you mean.

Except that it didn't.

Durrati, Empires by their nature are exploitative it why they come into being. We would be hard pushed to think of an exception.

An empire might be a great thing for members of the imperial ruling class and even for the generality of the imperial population. The colonised have a different perspective as they supply the tribute.

By the time of the Mutiny the East India Company was systematically moving to confiscate the wealth of the Indian rulers it had previously used as compradors.

As for the poor, whatever hazy concept of the Great White Queen they may or may not have had, they were very aware of the new taxes that impoverished them and of the policy that turned food crop growing land over to poppy production to such a degree that local famine occurred.

In terms of war the local population certainly felt the effect when the Company conquered new territory or when it suppressed resistance. Even without that the Company's self claimed monopoly on violence was surely coercive at pretty much every level.

So all in all life did not get better for the average Indian and that is without considering the social and cultural disruption and imposition of inferior status.

rmaker the Company extracted huge amounts of wealth from India and China and you saying "it didn't" will require a bit of expansion as far as a counter argument might go.

Living in New Zealand and watching any type of media I'd have to say the English. I keep pointing out that it was The British that Ruled here but it falls on death ears.

The Martians, they were indiscriminate in their use of rayguns.

The Aztecs. I can't think of another imperial power who was motivated by a thirst for human sacrifice.

Kevin

I'm not sure anyone beats the Romans. The Belgians didn't practice crucifixion, let alone make it routine. To paraphrase Loren Wiseman, who else needed to make up a word that means, "kill every tenth person"?

Kevin C does make a good point about the Aztecs. Cortez found eager allies among the colonized. The Incas were no better.

any good ones?