In Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’s writing, “Can the Subaltern Speak,” she explained the backstory and the effects of Britain’s colonization of India. Around the same time in the 19th century, Africa was being taken over by European powers. The European countries, such as France, Britain, Germany, and Italy, invaded Africa and imposed their own policies on the villagers (The scramble…). The villagers could not oppose because they were significantly behind in development, and they lacked a strong military. So, the Europeans used the land to farm and mine resources, all while employing the locals to work for very little pay (Imperialism and…). However, there were some positives to come out of the colonization. Africa substantially improved their infrastructure as well as their medicine. The new medicine increased the lifespan of the African people, sequentially growing the population. The Europeans also enforced strict borders by introducing more order than before (Colonial rule). This will not allow Africans to have independence, or the ability to migrate to a new country, always relying on the European power. Nonetheless, the African people were victims of a European stronghold attempting to grow their sovereignty.
Spivak would eventually write about the post-colonization effects of India and the people, similar to the colonization of Africa. She would then ask the question, “Can the Subaltern Speak?” The subaltern, or someone who was oppressed, was separated and controlled by a higher power. They could not express free speech nor make their own decisions. These people were also forced to accept new tradition, values, and religion. Spivak also made it clear that it was wrong for a Western power to institute change on a “third world country” and make it “standardized.” Just like the Indian people, the Africans’ basic rights and traditions were seized, forcing new ideal thinking. All in all, the European countries were trying to manipulate these countries for their own benefit, and the victims suffered.
Does a more powerful country have the right to colonize a society?
Sources:
Colonial rule. (n.d.). Retrieved February 06, 2021, from https://www.britannica.com/place/western-Africa/Colonial-rule
Imperialism and socialism in the context of Africa. (n.d.). Retrieved February 06, 2021, from https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/imperialism-and-socialism-context-africa
The scramble for AFRICA: Late 19th century. (n.d.). Retrieved February 06, 2021, from https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/grade-8-term-3-scramble-africa-late-19th-century
Hello, I really enjoyed your blog post. I find it very interesting that this was also going on at the same point in history. I find interesting that the European countries felt obligated to colonize other countries and even called it “white man’s burden.” To answer your question, I definitely do not believe more power countries have the right to colonize other societies. Just because you believe your values and customs are superior, does not mean the “less powerful” societies values are inferior and deserve to be changed.
Hello, thanks for the post! I think that highlighting that India was not the only country being colonized at the time was a great idea. This also helps us see the true scale of Great Britain’s empire at the time. It is strange for me to think that someone might perceive colonization as a duty. Unfortunately this is how the British felt and it resulted in cultural suppression around the world. To answer your question, I believe no one culture to be superior over the next and that each culture should be preserved since it gives us a better understanding of how the world thinks.
Thanks for taking some time to help give us an idea about what we will be reading this week. When you mentioned that there were some benefits that came out of the colonization of Africa, it made me wonder what that continent would look like if the colonization had not occurred. Who knows what the African cultures could have cultivated if it weren’t for the Europeans changing everything. Sure there were improvements that the Europeans brought, but I feel that the infrastructure improvements as well as the advanced medicine was intended to benefit those in power. These improvements most likely allowed for the Europeans to mine resources more effectively. Regardless, a longer lifespan for anyone can be seen as a benefit.
Hi! Thanks so much for this thoughtful context presentation. You really helped put together a timeline of events to give us a better understanding of the materials. I think the question you raised at the end is interesting, but it prompts us to consider what may have happened if colonization hadn’t occurred. Thinking about hostile takeovers as anyone’s right doesn’t sit well with me, but as I said, I think it prompts other questions.
Hi! Thanks for the background information for this week’s reading. In response to “Does a more powerful country have the right to colonize a society?”, there are many opinions on colonization and ways to answer this question. In order to answer this, I believe that we have to consider why colonization occurs. Main reasons for colonialism are based around political economic, religious, and social issues. These are legitimate reasons for colonization, but as you mentioned, it is very easy for an imbalance of power to occur and for unfair treatment by the stronger country.
Hi, I really enjoyed reading your post. It was very informative of what we are learning this week. Colonization is one of the topics many of us learned in elementary and middle school and yet it is still interesting. I agree that some things can be a positive because it put us where we are and what we have. I do not think though that countries should be able to just colonize anywhere because of their power. Power is one of the concepts that is scary if it is not used for a good purpose
This a great post and thank you for taking the time to write about it. To answer your question, no, I do not think a more powerful country has the right to colonize just any society. Of course, there are exceptions like if that society is failing and needs support from them, then aid could be needed. But the fact that most of these powerful countries colonize just for their own gain is revolting and out right unjust. Just like how you talked about colonization in Africa, yes there were some benefits out of that, but more harm that good was done in the long run
This was a great post! I enjoyed that both the negatives and positives were discussed about colonization. This gives us a more in depth looked and what took place in these countries, showing that no decision was a complete positive. I do not believe that a more powerful country has the right to colonize a society. Societies consist of unique peoples and unique cultures and should not be overtaken or erased by those with more power.
Hi, thank you for your post! I found the positives and negatives you listed interesting. What I originally thought was a straightforward question became a bit more convoluted. However, my answer is still the same. While there are some benefits, I do not believe that more powerful countries have the right to colonize other countries. Simply because these countries were less powerful they were taken advantage of and as a result lost a large piece of their history and free will. The benefits of being colonized do not outweigh these costs
Great work Your post was very insightful and intriguing. I actually got to study abroad in London, where I learned about the colonial rule that Britain had on a lot of different countries. Great Britain had more power and resources, which enabled them to exert this rule, inhibiting any independence of the subordinated countries. To answer your question: while it is possible for more powerful countries to colonize other countries, that does not mean it is right. From my perspective, it seems like a one-sided arrangement, with the more powerful countries gaining politically and monetarily while the subordinated countries lose independence.
Great post! I really enjoyed how this writing was set up. It was very clear, making it easy to read along. I don’t think people really understand the impact colonization from a one nation on another has. There is most definitely the pro side of it, such as improved economy, but it has it’s cons. A nation in theory takes control over the existing colony, making the people “theirs”. This makes them having to follow their rules, which in most cases are taken to the extreme.
Very interesting post! I have never really learned/thought about it in a way where colonization benefitted the country that was being colonized. Even though the colonization furthered the development of the African countries, it still set the continent back, mitigating the natural progress of the continent. The countries of Africa still heavily rely on outside sources, which they wouldn’t of had to if they were not colonialized.
Hello! This is a very interesting post and you prompt an incredibly important question. Personally, I think stronger countries should not be allowed to colonize smaller or weaker ones. This is because there are ways to share technological advancements and new ideas without forcing your own rule and agenda on another group of people. In a perfect world, we would offer information and ideas readily and collaborate with other countries, and we would do so without additionally forcing them to listen. Sharing information can lead to growth but forcing information and ideas/religions especially stifles and destroys cultures that were already existing. I think it is also important to note that, while medicine may improve in areas that have been colonized, colonizers also bring with them a slew of diseases for which the immune systems of the colonized are not prepared. A good example of this would be when the English came to America and brought with them smallpox. Additionally, medicine can and should be shared without the need for military enforcement.
Hello! What a great post! I am actually really into a historical fiction show that has been highlighting the colonies and settlers in pre-Revolutionary War America and they typically illustrate the global dominance and absolute power of Great Britain in a negative light. Your post really showed some of the positives that have come from colonization. I personally think there are more detrimental effects to colonization then positive but it’s important to recognize there are both. While they helped advance medicine they also brought diseases and outbreaks (small pox for one) these countries had never been exposed to.
This is a great presentation! Great job adding in both the horrors, and the benefits colonization brought places such as India and Africa. And as to your question, I don’t know if there is a correct answer. While people are mistreated and cultures are forcibly altered during colonization, technology that can improve people’s lives is brought with it. The answer most likely lies with the motive of the colonizer, and that is to expand their territory and control. When the group in power is gaining more control, it rarely means that the people not in power are not also giving up their own freedom at the same time. Colonization doesn’t necessarily have to be ‘right’ when the people that can decide what is ‘right’ are the ones capable of colonization.
I appreciate the organization of this context presentation. I feel your elaboration on a parallel story, in the terms of time and context of events, truly emphasizes the reality behind colonization during this time period. I also enjoyed how you incorporated the ways in which Africa was able to develop in a positive manner instead of strictly focusing on the negative outcomes. I personally feel that a large, powerful country does not have the right to impose upon smaller, less powerful countries. I believe this “duty” comes from a place of greed and usually causes more negative outcomes than positive ones.
Hello! Thank you for sharing a very interesting blog post. I thought it was interesting that a more dominant country, like those in Europe, could just walk into a country and claim it as their own(imperialism). They would essentially use a country for the resources that the country had, and make profit off of it. Although they established mines and farms, the native workers were paid so low that it could be considered slavery to an extent. This also would pressure the local farmers since they now have to compete with the imperialist farms. To answer you question if it is ok for a more powerful country to colonize a society, I don’t believe it should be allowed.
Thank you for a great introduction to this week’s material! I enjoyed the way your presentation was organized, it helped me understand what your main points are. To answer your question, I do not think that more powerful countries have the right to colonize a society. I think that more powerful countries feel more that it is their duty to colonize societies that they believe to need assistance.
Nice work, Justin. It’s important to realize how much control a higher power can really have on someone lower than them. I feel like freedom of speech and decision-making from the perspective of those living in the society are just as, if not more vital to a successful country. I think that if a ‘powerful country’ decides to try and colonize a society, it should be done out of hopes to help, rather than to create a hierarchy and lessen the voices of others. I think deciding whether or not if a more powerful society colonizes a society, the actions should be transparent before enacted and also in the end, be up to the society if they want help from an outsider.
Nice work, Justin. It’s a really interesting topic to think about. Since those countries that are more powerful are eager to get more resources from those weaker ones. I think the primary target to colonize a country is to obtain resources and a cheaper labor force. Before we talk about the negative influence on colonization, we have to admit that those countries who are more powerful do cause some positive influences on their colonies like their education and medical condition. However, colonial rule destroys the freedom of the colonists so that people from the colony will fight for their freedom.
Hi!
I really enjoyed reading your blog post. You made some really great points as well as left us all with a question to ponder: Does a more powerful country that the right to colonize a society? As we have seen time and time again, no. A more powerful country does not that the right to take over a society just because they are more powerful and can do so. With Europe colonizing Africa, we see that the rights of the African people are stripped. They can no longer speak their mind or make their own decisions. They had to change their way of life just because a more powerful country decided to take over. Similarly, the Native Americans in North America expericence this as well with Europe. The Europeans came over across the sea and decided to start colonizing the area that was already claimed by the native americas. However, since Europe was more powerful, they destroyed the Native American’s land and created new harsh rules for them to follow. We know that many Native Americans were driven out of their homes because of the Europeans. It is not okay to strip the rights and freedoms of a society just because a country is more powerful.
This was a great post, Justin! I loved the question that you left us off with. I really do not think that any powerful country holds a right to colonization without the consent of the pre-existing society. That said, if the people of a country are open to colonization and the benefits that come along with it, then it would be appropriate to colonize (this is a rare situation). As you mentioned in your post, often times colonization leads to negative effects such as creating an oppressed group of people that may be manipulated for the good of the colonizing country.
I really enjoyed reading your context presentation for this week! I really liked the connection you made with the colonization of India and the European imperialism that happened in Africa. I didn’t know these two events happened around the same time and how they were pretty similar. I never really thought about how colonization and imperialism happened in the past, but I think it is an important aspect that should be reflected on and questioned. In your presentation, it seems that there are pros and cons of new colonization, where the people living in Africa seemed to increase their lifespan, but they also had to adjust to a new system.
Great post! I really enjoyed reading your interpretation of our material and I think you organized it in a very helpful, easy to understand way. In my opinion, I do not think that just because a country is “more powerful” than another, that they have the right to colonize a society who is less powerful. Most colonizers, that at least I can recall, have done so out of greed, or the hopes that the outcome of the colonization would result in an abundance of wealth or other self beneficial things. Colonizing can be done for good, however, and in that case I think it is much different.
Thank you all for your insightful comments. I really enjoyed researching and writing about this topic. You all gave great responses, and I feel like everyone added something important that went along with the main idea.
I appreciate your post. As to the question you posed at the end, I believe that a country should only be colonized if it is by their consent. Obviously that is unreasonable and how imperialism works but that is the only logical way to do it. Although its effects are mostly negative, if used properly it can jump-start a country and its growth which can in turn lead to its eventual independence and self-sufficiency.
Hello Justin, I think your post is concise, powerful, and well written. I would like to address your question- Does a more powerful country have the right to colonize a society?
As an Indian, I am grateful for the improvements in infrastructure, medicine, and technology brought about by the colonizers in my country. However, I think there is an important and implicit difference between a country being forced to improve and a country choosing to get inspired and adopt infrastructural changes and improvements in medicine. One can only imagine what these colonized societies could have cultivated in the absence of forced changes. I think a country has the right to make decisions about itself. I don’t think any country has the right to colonize another society except for its own.
Hi Justin, I thought your presentation was really good. I think it is interesting for you to point out what growth happened in Africa due to colonization. Usually when I think about it I think about the negative parts and never really look at what change really occurred. While now acknowledging the changes it makes me question what it would have looked like if white colonization hadn’t happened. What differences would there be? What would the people of Africa done differently if the white man didn’t come in and change ways?
Hi! I really enjoyed your context presentation on European Imperialism in Africa. I like how you compared colonialism in Africa and India, and told the positive and negative side of colonialism. A more powerful country does not have the right to colonize a society, because too many times the indigenous people are taken advantage of and/or abused. The more powerful country treats the colonized societies poorly and takes advantage of them.
This is very interesting information, how the structure of the European imperialism in Africa had a good and bad situation to what has happened depending on the point of view. To answer your question, “Does a more powerful country have the right to colonize a society?”. It depends on between the two, because instead of colonizing a society then could have made an agreement that works out to be more positive than negative. Within your passage even though British colonized Africa and they didn’t have the power to overcome this rule (imperialism), there was still positive look into it like the improvement of medicine and infrastructure that would benefit them more. With the overall point of colonization, it is not right in the first place, even if is needed like there has to be an agreement between the two for the improvement of both can happen. Through this, we can improve as a society and create a more unified civilization instead of taking advantage and abusing another land.
Great post! To answer your question, I don’t believe any country has the right to infringe on the sovereignty of another group of people. However, I do believe there are benefits of colonization. The technology and knowledge that larger and more advanced nations bring could be helpful. Unfortunately, there are not too many examples in history that do not also bring sickness, violence, and ethnocentrism. The dynamic between a colonized society and a colonizer is often that of Self and the Other. This is usually a result of the superior stature that colonizers feel due to their advancements in technology.
Thank you!
My opinion is that even a stronger country shouldn’t colonize another weaker society. It leads to clear class differences. Those who are from the stronger country will think that they are naturally superior to the local people. It’s common to receive help from another stronger country but colonization is a completely different thing.