• 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    I mean the British had a huge role in ending slavery, not because it was the right thing to do but because other countries were doing it better and so it was better to invest in stopping others than doing it themselves

    The US and USSR similarly ended most colonialism because they were the most powerful nations in the world and yet couldn’t compete in that field

    As countries become powerful, they seek to destroy whatever the previous symbol of power was and replace it with whatever they’re good at until the next newly powerful country comes along

      • 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yes pretty much really using the right definitions, however there’s different types of colonialism - the type where you make your own cities and push out the natives (eg Australia, most of the Americas) is gone, as is the type where you find a (nearly?) uninhabited area/island and use it to expand your influence in the area (eg. Mauritius and Singapore with 0 and 150 population at colonisation respectively) leaving only the type where you take over and control the administration of the existing population, eg in India, most of Africa, the USSR in Central Asia (among other places) and in neocolonialism

        It’s also hard to group them all together as “evil colonialism” too though as the 1st and 3rd are of course pretty evil, there’s not a whole lot wrong with the 2nd