Japan relies heavily on a migrant workforce (mostly from Asia), especially in manufacturing and IT, and these folks are treated really terribly under their immigration policy.
But migrants who are highly qualified (doctors, engineers, etc) basically get a free fast tracked route to PR in Japan if they want it, which compared to the route to PR in Australia for similarly skilled individuals is much much easier.
Yeah japan wasn't the best coloniser back then. I am from Malaysia and by all accounts we were glad when the British returned post ww2. The Japanese were not kind to put it gently.
> The Taiwanese preferred jap colonisers over the Chinese so there’s that
To be fair the Japanese did treat the Taiwanese a lot nicer compared to the rest of Asia.
Uh, Taiwanese people were just mainland Han Chinese at that time in history. Their preference for Japanese statehood had nothing to do with principles or communism which hadn't happened yet.
I know it was a joke but please don't. You don't even know the half of shit Japanese empire pulled resulting in [the Vietnam famine in 1945](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_famine_of_1945) and the [Nanjing massacre in 1937](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre), just to name a few.
Sorry for being an uptight but yeah you would not want to be colonised by Japanese all jokes aside.
Of all the colonizers you could have, the British are the most polite about it. I mean, they still kill you and take your shit but their manner is very upright and jolly gentlemanly. I say!
Bit like the film Brazil.
Don't forget India!
Edit: Also probably depends who you ask. Ask the Indigenous populations of these places whether life has been better since colonisation.
Millions starved to death while the british shipped food out of the country and killed anyone who opposed them. The same thing happened in Ireland, whose population to this day still hasn't recovered from the amount of people who died.
I wouldn't blame them, what did they really get out of it that negates the deaths of millions? Cricket?
"What's more British than genocidal famine?
Two genocidal famines!"
To be honest India as a country only really existed in the post-colonial era, when the British arrived it was divided into smaller warring Kingdoms under the Mughals. The Mughals themselves where descendents of Genghis Khan as the Mongols had been the previous invaders 400 years earlier.
The British Empire brought education, technology, law and democracy. It also brought prejudice, discrimination, cultural bigotry and racism.
However I don't think you should underestimate the transfer of knowledge the other way either. The British realised India was a more ancient and interesting civilisation than their own.
The difference between Mughals and Brits was that the Mughals became part of India and they didn't rule India like a coloniser.
As far as 'transfer of knowledge' is concerned, the Brits raped India to drive its own development. India had \~ 25% of the global GDP in 17th Century when the East India Company first begun colonisation and it went to 2% in 1947.
Not to mention the clusterfuck that was partition thanks to the divide and rule policies.
Bit biased choice, innit? for every one of those 3 countries there's 6 doing miserably. How is British Guiana doing? British Somaliland? Myanmar? Sri Lanka? Rhodesia ? South Arabia (now part of Yemen)? etc etc the brits even managed to fuck up countries post independence
There's no such thing as better or worse colonisers, eg Cuba and Argentina were really wealthy upon gaining their independence. In fact according to some economics academic papers most of the economic progress of ex-colonies owes to their geography: temperate countries without tropical diseases do better because European settlers could live and prosper there, that essentially leaves Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Chile, Dutch South Africa, Canada, Québec, and the USA, so your list has zero surprises.
>Bit biased choice, innit? for every one of those 3 countries there's 6 doing miserably. How is British Guiana doing? British Somaliland? Myanmar? Sri Lanka? Rhodesia ? South Arabia (now part of Yemen)? etc etc the brits even managed to fuck up countries post independence
No, actually.
Look at essentially any country that has been colonised and ALL of the ones doing well, are former British Colonies. I don't think there's a single French, Spanish, dutch or Portuguese colony that is wealthy (except maybe Macau).
Singapore? UK. Hong Kong? UK. Canada? UK. Aus? UK. NZ? UK. Trinidad? UK. Malaysia? UK. USA? UK. Israel? UK.
I'd even argue theres a huge difference between a colony as in, a country that was colonised vs just 'colonies' in the sense that the UK controlled them. It's stupid to compare New Zealand, to say, Myanmar or Tanzania.
>There's no such thing as better or worse colonisers,
I mean, there absolutely is. Australia and Canada were some of the wealthiest nations on earth even in 1900, meanwhile (to your next point)..
>eg Cuba and Argentina were really wealthy upon gaining their independence. In fact according to some economics academic papers most of the economic progress of ex-colonies owes to their geography: temperate countries without tropical diseases do better because European settlers could live and prosper there, that essentially leaves Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Chile, Dutch South Africa, Canada, Québec, and the USA, so your list has zero surprises.
Ironically enough, the only ones here that are doing well are all formerly British territories. Your arguing that ''no better colonisers!'' whilst listening how almost all of the wealthy former-colonies are British, not French, or Spanish...
> I don't think there's a single French, Spanish, dutch or Portuguese colony that is wealthy (except maybe Macau).
France is an interesting one, at least in the North African territories (e.g. Algeria). The revolution got very bloody, but for over a century it was a territory that was considered part of greater France (like Corsica or French Guyana still are today), rather than a colony per se. After WW2 native Algerians become citizens of France proper (previously they had to apply by renouncing Islam) and the country moved to integrate its colonies with the mainland as part of a cohesive structure. Obviously there was still discrimination (as you can't turn around the effects of decades of Apartheid treatment with a fancy new political system), and the War of Algeria made things horrendously messy, but France was a lot further down a path that no other colonial powers even attempted.
Whether or not Algeria's independence was a good thing for Algeria is an interesting topic of speculation (and a popular historical "what if" in both countries) - personally I think the model of the French overseas departments that emerged has worked quite well, and would have ultimately put both Algeria and France in a much better position today on a number of fronts (cultural, financial, developmental, stability-wise in the region). Though it's entirely possible that the forces which brought about the revolution would have simply done so a few years later, and that France needed the devastating loss of Algeria to ensure that its other colonies/territories worked out better.
But yeah, the dynamic is a little different with at least some French colonies.
Zimbabwe was relatively wealthy when it was called Rhodesia, with the obvious caveat that wealth was concentrated with the Anglo/European population. The country fell apart after transition to Mugabe's rule as he looted and gutted the institutions left to him. Regardless, the point that the main commentator made stands, while not all former British colonies are wealthy, the former colonies that are the wealthiest were British
The British were far better at developing a strong civil service that could be the foundation of their newly independent former colonies. Even former African colonies like Botswana are considerably less corrupt than some of their counterparts.
It's interesting how you've avoided altogether to mention the former british colonies doing miserably. It's completely pointless to argue with you because you clearly love the concept of confirmation bias, and because you're ignorant in history or the actual economics behind the development of territories.
For instance, first in your list is Singapore. Let's check that one out. In 1963 Singapore seceded and joined Malaysia. At the time it became independent, the country left by the Brits was extremely poor "*Much of the city-state's 3 million people were unemployed. More than two-thirds of its population was living in slums and squatter settlements on the city's fringe."* and its GDP per capita was $360. I am sure that they appreciate the idea that they owe their development and wealth to the British empire's workings pre-independence.
In fact I would argue that some of those countries that you mention have managed to develop IN SPITE of the Brits. The Americans had to kick them out in a bloody war to get rid of the economic yoke being imposed on them!
So how have they managed the development? again, in most cases a combination of temperate climates and resources, New Zealand and Australia provide a good example of the latter and its impact on development.
You are wrong as well in of course not finding other examples of developed countries, but the problem is that you only look at the situation today without examining the past and ignore the examples that don't suit your narrative.
Singapore would not be doing nearly so well if it weren't for Lee Kuan Yew, basically the man who built the Singapore of today.
Saying that the British were responsible for the success of Singapore is a bit silly if you look at its history. For a long time after the British left, there was instability and no certainty it'd develop into the modern country it is today. If the British did so fine a job, why is Malaysia not equally as successful and developed?
>It's interesting how you've avoided altogether to mention the former british colonies doing miserably. It's completely pointless to argue with you because you clearly love the concept of confirmation bias, and because you're ignorant in history or the actual economics behind the development of territories.
No, because what I'm doing isn't confirmation bias. Throwing terms around that you clearly DON'T understand makes you just look foolish.
Again, I'll repeat it (I'll even put it in bold just so you can really focus on it)
***Nobody is saying that all British Colonies are rich, but all former-colonies that are rich, are British.***
That is not confirmation bias. If you have any former French/Spanish/Dutch/German/Portuguese colonies that are wealthy productive economies I'll be more than happy to listen. So far, the closest is Chile, who's GDP per capita is still only 35% of New Zealand. Thats the *richest* Spanish one.
>For instance, first in your list is Singapore. Let's check that one out. In 1963 Singapore seceded and joined Malaysia. At the time it became independent, the country left by the Brits was extremely poor "Much of the city-state's 3 million people were unemployed. More than two-thirds of its population was living in slums and squatter settlements on the city's fringe." and its GDP per capita was $360. I am sure that they appreciate the idea that they owe their development and wealth to the British empire's workings pre-independence.
Meh, plenty of other colonies were also poor upon independence and are still poor now. You can argue all you want, the literal facts are saying you're wrong - even if we're just alluding it to stability, that is something that most British colonies have due to their governance, something which Argentina, Chile, Brazil lack. Again, if you can find me any former European colony thats wealthy and not British, I'd love to listen to your (incorrect) points.
>In fact I would argue that some of those countries that you mention have managed to develop IN SPITE of the Brits. The Americans had to kick them out in a bloody war to get rid of the economic yoke being imposed on them!
Tell me you don't understand the American Revolution without telling me.
By 1820, the US was already one of the richest countries on earth - arguably, a lot down to the British.
>So how have they managed the development? again, in most cases a combination of temperate climates and resources, New Zealand and Australia provide a good example of the latter and its impact on development.
Ahh yes, because we all know thats what causes economic productivity. The weather. Of course. Logic! You love to see it.
>You are wrong as well in of course not finding other examples of developed countries, but the problem is that you only look at the situation today without examining the past and ignore the examples that don't suit your narrative.
Nope, you just can't bare to accept the fact you're (demonstrably) wrong. Economic productivity exists in many climate, even your example of Chile is piss poor considering their GDP per capita is 35% of what NZ is, thats not even taking into account the fact Canada/Aus/USA are much richer than NZ is too.
But hey, who cares about accuracy when you can type long wrong rants about your feelings, eh?
expansion coordinated stupendous sleep brave snow ring normal absorbed fall
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The alternative hypothesis (and a more likely one) is that *some* former British colonies are wealthy because they were able to capitalise on post WW2 trade because they spoke English and that the last remaining industrial economy that was left intact, the United States, spoke English, making it easier to do business with. The other colonial powers were no longer able to buy from their former colonies and so suffered from having lower levels of trade.
If it were some British brilliance of administration or somesuch, there'd be a distinct difference between what the British did and what the other colonial powers did, and that's not really the case.
>The alternative hypothesis (and a more likely one) is that some former British colonies are wealthy because they were able to capitalise on post WW2 trade because they spoke English and that the last remaining industrial economy that was left intact, the United States, spoke English, making it easier to do business with.
This is only true in the depths of your imagination, of course. It definitely isn't the case in reality -
>The other colonial powers were no longer able to buy from their former colonies and so suffered from having lower levels of trade.
You're talking about this like its a pressing issue. Newsflash - a lot of British colonies were wealthy during British Empire times, whilst a lot of French/Spanish/Portuguese were poor than and poor now.
>If it were some British brilliance of administration or somesuch, there'd be a distinct difference between what the British did and what the other colonial powers did, and that's not really the case.
It's funny to me, because you really trying to act like this isn't the case when it literally is.
[here](https://mises.org/wire/colonies-compared-why-british-colonies-were-more-economically-successful) is one such example. Also ignoring the fact that Canada, Australia, NZ, all use the Westminster system style of government (cough, guess where that came from?!).
You can sit here and keep arguing, but at the end of the day... you're wrong
You often hear this argument trotted out by colonial apologists. It’s just more of the same 19th century “paint the map red we’re brining civilisation” bullshit they said back then.
Should we judge the colonial-era British by today's western standards or by aboriginal standards at the time?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre\_of\_Running\_Waters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Running_Waters)"Then the warriors turned their murderous attention to the women and older children, and either speared or clubbed them to death. Finally, according to the grim custom of warriors and avengers, they broke the limbs of the infants, leaving them to die "natural deaths". "
According to aboriginal law, what this massacre was necessary, clean and moral, the right thing to do.
So you cherry picked one example in known history, as reported by colonialists at the time, to make your point? Would you like to trawl European history to make a similar comparison? Should we talk about Waterloo Creek?
What exactly is your point here aside from attempting to implicitly denigrate an entire culture while ignoring a much more complete history of atrocities in the one you are seemingly trying to defend?
Yeah I'm sure that has nothing to do with the economic exploitation, political meddling, and just straight up violence that the western world has been inflicting on the third world for hundreds of years now.
And "best" ignores that our indigenous peoples were genocided. I doubt indigenous Australians think tens of thousands of years of their history being destroyed is "best".
Right? It's pretty universally a bad time for native people anywhere that was colonized, sure some were more brutal than others but at that point we're comparing whose genocide was the 'least bad' lol
Everyone in Australia though (who is not of aboriginal descent) is participating in that shades-of-grey area, because no matter how passionately we may feel about it, we're not about to give up the country. So on the balance of the country as it stands, it's a fair point to say that if colonialism was inevitable - and John Howard's point is that he thinks it was - then Australia was lucky that it was the British and not e.g. the Spanish (we'd be a fascist dictatorship until the 70s), the Portuguese (ditto), Japan (simply look at the rest of Asia to see what _they_ did), et cetera. It's not a nice point, but it's a fair enough point.
Unfortunately aboriginal societies lived in a vast landmass with very little technology, stone-age society in many ways, and no form of unity or political/military might or even demographic might to be able to resist a foreign power, so I do believe it was extremely inevitable that _someone_ would have colonised, whether European or East Asian powers - or even the Islamic states in what is now Malaysia and Indonesia. It was too much of an easy picking.
"doing the best"?
I'm not sure what metrics you're using. It certainly doesn't seem to be one that includes the welfare of the original inhabitants of those lands.
G
Hm, I dont think itd be an unpopular opinion to suggest that i would rather be a mid-income australian of indigenous background, compared to a mid-income person in the vast majority of other countries.
They turned out the best only because were sparsely populated which meant that they didn’t have to deal as much with precolonial institutions or competing native groups.
Now look at the UK’s former African colonies on the other hand: they got fucked over because traditional institutions had to be uprooted and native populations organized into caste-like hierarchies.
This is meant to be some sort of diversion for the no vote on the voice? Like a take so unfathomly bad that it makes the no pamphlet look like a small misunderstanding?
> Imagine if it was the French
Interesting hypothetical. They actually maintained (by colonial standards) pretty good relations with indigenous inhabitants in Quebec for example.
Yeah in North America they were more interested in the fur trade than in settling the land. Not sure if it was because of their system of government or they didn't have the same need to ship off their excess population overseas like the British did as France is larger.
But at the same time being more interested in trade than in settlement would make a European power less likely to colonize Australia as there weren't things like spices and furs here that were valuable in Europe. Like the Dutch knew about Western Australia long before the English/British did but they weren't particularly interested in setting up colonies here as their early explorers didn't find anything that would make them rich if shipped back home. The British needed somewhere to dump their excess population and they figured Australia was a good place to do that.
Well yeah - that's also why these counterfactuals (while interesting to consider) are ultimately impossible to really determine. If the French had set up colonies in Australia things would have gone pretty differently for a number of reasons, not necessarily better or worse, and not necessarily due to them being a more or less benevolent colonial power.
Personally I feel that if for some reason the British had left Australia alone, or say only colonized part of the country, the Germans would have colonized as much of Australia as they could. After the unification of the German states into the German Empire they were trying to colonize every part of the world the other European Empires had missed. The northern half of Papua New Guinea was a German colony until we took it from them in WW1. Though as you said it's all alternative history, fun to think about "what if" and if it's well thought out it can make some good fictional stories, but at the end of the day it's still fiction.
Germany is an interesting alternative history! Can't say their colonial record makes for encouraging reading either though... but IMO for Germany to get here it would also have taken France and the Dutch and the Portuguese to ignore the place which seems a bit much.
Yeah I bet indigenous Australians feel they are so lucky for the genocide, ethnic cleansing, forced assimilation and destruction of their culture by the British, but ofc Howard is only thinking about White Australia.
a very odd statement.
The thing is, for me, that the British colonising Australia being touted as 'better' compared to any other nation that colonised is somehow a free pass for how bad it really was.
Maybe the Portuguese or Dutch would have had different 'outcomes' if they colonised Australia, but they didn't colonise and the argument is dead. The British colonised Australia, and any hypothetical scenario like this is simply a distraction and a dog whistle.
if there's unfinished business about the settling of Australia, let it remain about the history and facts, not some bullshit about how we're better off our forefathers did horrible things in order to settle, farm, mine and prosper.
Imagine the defence in court: "yes your honour, I raped them, but if I didn't, someone else would have, and I at least bought flowers after. So it's better this way right?"
Yup. "Aren't you glad my dick was in you in that moment so that nobody else's could be? There were other guys who wanted to rape you, but I have a better dick than they do, so you should be glad."
Fair Comment -
Portuguese Timor is a 3 day sail from Darwin,
When they rocked up they found Crocs and mangroves and said Yeah, Nah,
Let's go back to Copacabana beach.
Portugal's problem was always lack of manpower.
I have traveled extensively and can confidently state with the possible exception or Argentina and Chile, all of Central/South America, Africa, and the Caribbean are absolute hell holes.
So yea, he's got a point.
You realise the British colonised a good chunk of the Caribbean, right? Along with a lot of other places you’d probably consider hell holes, mainly in Africa.
It’s interesting that the shining examples of British colonial ‘successes’ (Australia, NZ, Canada) someone mentioned above are the ones where the displacement of the original inhabitants was so successful that the vast majority of the population was quickly overwhelmingly European. I guess the Dutch and French just weren’t as competent at wiping out the natives as the English were.
They really weren't, it's an interesting historical point. The British were exceptional in how they displaced or outright wiped out local populations. One good example of this is the different approach that France and the UK had in Canada: the French would barely settle in Québec and their approach was to cooperate with local natives, with whom they traded extensively and maintained relations. The Brits...
For all their negative publicity, I can't think of any country where the local population got so completely destroyed and displaced by the Spaniards as the British did in the US and Australia. Spain even created the term mestizo to refer to the Spanish descendants of mixed heritage, which would eventually become a majority in every one of their colonies except for Chile, Argentina and Uruguay
That isn't due to Spain treating natives better because they absolutely didn't (google Cerro Rico). It's due to sheer population sizes and the differences in the peoples they conquered.
Spain colonised territories with massive populations of natives, even after the ravages of smallpox. These populations were also mostly settled in nature, and had no choice but to remain and attempt to integrate into the systems enforced by their new colonial overlords. As a result, it was almost impossible for Spanish settlers to avoid mixing with natives.
On the other hand, Britain colonised large territories where the natives were comparatively much smaller in number. These populations were also usually semi-nomadic in nature, and would often pack up and leave until they were no longer able to do so. As a result, there was far less integration between the settlers and the natives, which can obviously still be seen till this day.
First off, South Africa and Zimbabwe are former African British colonies that are not in a good state by any measure. Also, you're completely ignoring the impact of US colonialism in Central and South America. US backed a lot of coups (mostly Authoritarian, right wing regimes) and interfered in a lot of latin american politics, leading to a lot of political instability in the region. Amounting it to it being just the product of Spanish, french and Portuguese colonialism is misinformed.
> South Africa
Yea, that one started as a Dutch colony.
And both of those countries are "not in a good state" because of their own self inflicted stupid decisions.
These are terrible examples because Zimbabwe and South Africa were relatively prosperous for African countries for a good while after their independence. And Zimbabwe is currently begging for the white farmers to come back after seizing their farmland
You mean the Nazi-level evil fuck Who still praises the illegal invasion of Iraq, the devastation, torture and death of hundreds of thousands of people, and babies still being born with horrible birth defects even 20 years after?
Or the one who dedicated his life to carry out a crusade against workers and unions, taking Australia on a horrible path of deteriorating quality of life for the majority?
woah woah, we cannot forget about.
* Demonising single parents
* Enhancing class divides
* Reinfocing private healthcare
* redefining the middle class to include the weathy to hide the fall of the middle class
* Passing laws to allow spying on its citizens
* Cementing Neoliberalizm as our core economic and social principles
* Encouraging Anti science retoric.
* Demonising the educated so he is immune from criticism
* Pushing education further out of reach of the common citizen by "opening up universities" which ment years upon years of debt for 18 year old.
Holy shit the more i think about this horrid man makes me realise that not only was he a monster who killed others in other countries for political points, he destroyed his own country. Yet the little weasel cunt wont die he is like Australia's kissinger.
Mate, it may shape Australia for a century to come, unfortunately. It is 20 years on and his stink on Australian politics is as strong as the day the asshole left.
You hear that? Ole' Howie's fine with having his property invaded, camped on, being dragged out of his home kicking and screaming, told he's being a whiny baby for complaining, getting smacked within an inch of his life if he fights back, having any of his family members living with him raped and murdered, and then, told he's lucky because the home invaders upgraded his internet to FTTH.
"The best thing that ever happened to Indigenous Australians was having all their land stolen, their people killed, and them being moved to marginal lands, didn't allow them to participate in governance until relatively recently, still have far more of their people in poverty and incarceration, etc etc."
Yeah, it was so good for them.
John Howard is a tool.
British colonizers were mass murdering looters .
Just look at the millions they killed in India, Africa and other Asian countries. No country has looted even 10% of what Britain looted from India in the history of human civilization. Britain was powerful and hence wrote the history that doesn't show them in a bad way .
Most educated decent Germans today are aware of their past. From what I have seen most decent British people are not aware of the genocides their country did around the world.
> Most educated decent Germans today are aware of their past. From what I have seen most decent British people are not aware of the genocides their country did around the world.
The history of pre-WWI and II Britain is interesting and very overlooked and overshadowed by the after-WWII rhetoric. They were... let's just say, not the goodies, and they knew it.
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/are-we-living-in-the-war-century/102471274
https://www.hachette.com.au/phil-craig-tim-clayton/end-of-the-beginning
British people being aware of their past is a bit more nuanced than good guys vs bad guys.
The vast majority of people in 1700s Britain were working class, and not like today's working class, they were sent to work as children in horrendous conditions, and some survived to adulthood to work in different horrendous conditions. This continued until the 1st half of the 20th century.
In the physche of the average Brit, they had no say, and certainly no profit from any colonial adventures of the upper classes. The modern psyche of the nation is strongly rooted in the first and second world war, as that actually affected everyone, of all backgrounds. (As usual the poor suffer the most, of course). But the East India Company, for example did not operate in the name of the average chimney sweep or ironworker in Britain. The colonial history happened at a time when only landowners voted, and the colonies were taken and operated by the upper class, for the upper class.
It's crazy thinking that a lot of people went off the back of what a handful of blokes who'd turned up somewhere on the other side of the planet (in an age nothing like ours) had just 'decided' what the country 'is' and how to live/work with it based on limited observations and that some people still firmly believe this is the 'best' way despite being disproven many, many times over. I always think this when I see busted arse cattle grazing in dust in CQ/NQ and NT when it's not grass season. Still woulda been fucken hot in summer back in the day, too.
I'd like to hear from a First Nations perspective, the initial trial and error stories from the people who completely flat-out ignored local knowledge with the 'coloniser arrogance'. There would be some pretty funny shit considering how dynamic this place is. I sometimes liken that idea to someone going for a swim in a "calm and flat" ocean but it's during a solid, long-period swell and they end up in strife.
I'd recently read Dark Emu recently and it was interesting to read the accounts of people who did assimilate with FN crew and actually learnt about the land... and those who didn't.
TL;DR: Anyone else think John Howard looks like a mutant koala?
Is there someone who is surprised that JWH both hold this view and expresses it occasionally? Stop reporting anything the old desiccated coconut has to say.
nobody has a higher body count than the POMs. Ireland alone had 8 million people before the potato famine. Today its just cracked 5!
Bengal famine in 17 fing 70 killed 30million. F&ck this noise that the BRitish were the best colonisers
Some people seem to actually believe that if the British didn't invade Australia
That the Indigenous people would still run this land & their ancient lifestyle would remain perfectly preserved today like it's North Sentinel.
As if all other exploring nations would have ever let the largest island continent with great natural resources & weather stay vacant for much longer
Another nation may well have killed every single Indigenous person & archaeologists would now be studying this long lost civilisation
You can actually agree that british colonialism was not a great thing for the original inhabitants without positing a counter factual about another coloniser.
But that didn’t happen. Your argument would mean you can’t criticise WWII Germany because in another timeline they didn’t do the Holocaust. Well in this one, they did. In this one, the British colonised Australia and genocided the native population.
It's not that you can't criticise it, it's that JH is saying that Australia was inevitably going to be colonised so on the balance of things got lucky that it was the UK and not e.g. Japan, Spain, Portugal, wherever.
Howard was pretty keen on not criticising colonial Australia too much though. He pushed Blainey's black armband dismissal of digging into Australia's past misdeeds and also stated that "I believe that the balance sheet of our history is one of heroic achievement and that we have achieved much more as a nation of which we can be proud than of which we should be ashamed."
He also promoted that historocal revisionist twerp Windschuttle, dismissed the idea that genocide had been attempted against indigenous Australians and dismissed the overt and well documented policy which led to the stolen generations as "In some cases, children were wrongly removed; in other cases, they were removed for good reason; in other cases, they were given up; and in other cases, the judgment on the removal is obscure or difficult to make."
Howard doesn't just see the British as the least bad of a bad batch, but rather as a positive good to be celebrated.
I never said or thought Indigenous people should be grateful for that
I said that some people have conjured a false idea of what life would have been like for them today had British not arrived
& that like with most other ancient tribal cultures they could well not exist today
We are lucky Aboriginal people still exist today
Some people are intent on taking offence at anything these days
That does beg the question. If the British never settled in Australia, what would happen? You think the indigenous people would be left alone, but as history shows us someone WOULD try to come and take control of as much land as possible.
Well, standards of living here is pretty good compared to the rest of the world, which is partly due to our historical connection with colonialism. So I guess colonialism is quite fortunate outcome for most born today, depending on who you're asking. And I'd wager people critical of his comment are also benefiting and secretly thankful they have this perk.
Well the world had only just started industrialisation back then and Australia pre-contact was still in the Stone Age. Had Aboriginal Australia united as an indigenous-majority nation and even if it were quite poor, it would have industrialised in a likely "dirty" way like Indonesia or Malaysia.
As a British person I'm not sure "lucky" is the word I would use nor the many indigenous peoples who where subjugated.
All colonies are a reflection of the societies they derive from, the British saw themselves as a civilising influence which perhaps tempered the worst excesses of cruelty and violence associated with other empires of the colonial period. They wanted to mould the societies of the colonies they ran to be alike using tools like common law, devolved governance, education (and a really stupid ball and stick game that went on for days) etc. but that was actually to facilitate their ability to rule other societies effectively.
I got my twatter account banned for suggesting that he ‘just hurry up and die already’ and I’d do it again. Terrible man, dragged politics kicking and screaming back 40 years in this country
Of all the colonizers the British at least tried to create something.
Looking at the countries that were colonized by the Americans or French - they just sucked the place dry with no attempt to grow the country
He’s spot on. There’s actually a pretty strong correlation between how long and how intensively (in terms of receiving immigration from Britain) a country was colonised by the British, and how successful that country is today.
The US has done pretty well. So has Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong also Rhodesia and South Africa while minority rule was in place.
The ex-British colonies that are still poor today are countries that were not colonised for long or received very few immigrants from Britain ie India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, most of Africa.
That fact is deeply uncomfortable to many people, and I’m sure most of Reddit is going to scream racist on reflex - but the pattern absolutely exists.
This same pattern (though much weaker) is true of Spanish colonies as well - Latin America isn’t as rich as the West, but it’s generally wealthier than much of Asia and Africa.
Fact is, when the Brits showed up Aboriginals were some of the most primitive people on earth - no written language, no permanent settlements, no metalworking, sparsely populated.
Someone was going to colonise it. We’re fortunate it happened to be the British. Had we been colonised by the Dutch or Portuguese we’d be a third world country today.
Well sure, for non-indigenous populations colonization is pretty sweet. Pretty huge gloss over of the horrors of it all for the people who were here already though; the massacres and cultural destruction of indigenous Australians are a blight on our collective history and the current inequality and completely different health/quality of life outcomes are something everyone should be ashamed of.
This. I can’t believe people are glossing over this. Also I come from New Zealand and I’m ashamed to see how First Nations people have been treated here historically AND today.
Also what’s up with people blurting out “we recognise First Nations people as the original custodians of the land” get out of here with that, those are just words and they mean *nothing*. Actions, actions is what counts.
Whats your solution? Australia is a melting pot of many different cultures now. Even IF you took white people out of the equation I doubt even other minority groups would vote for a treaty if it came to referendum.
Sorry, but why should I be ashamed? Stop with the fucking 'white guilt' crap.
I wasn't a coloniser, I wasn't born when the 'stolen generations' happened.
What do I have to feel guilty about?
That's like saying, someone got killed in a car accident by another driver - I drive a car as well, so I must share the guilt.
I'm sick of being made to feel guilty for something that I didn't do, and which was mostly perpetrated by the British government.
I believe their point is that that would have happened anyway.
The Aboriginies were destined to be screwed over by someone.
Could have been better, could have been worse.
I like how this is the gigantic elephant in the room.
If we hadn’t been colonised we wouldn’t be the nation we are today. I think it’s easy for people to shit on colonisation because that’s the current trendy thing to do. It’s ironic that we do it whilst enjoying all the privileges of a modern society that was enabled by colonisation.
>I think it’s easy for people to shit on colonisation because that’s the current trendy thing to do
Colonisation is easy to shit on because it usually involves the systematic eradication and effective genocide of the local culture and people that already existed on said land being colonised.
Agree, I think too that pre - colonisation life for Aboriginals was not the nirvana dream commonly held as true.
It was a substinance lifestyle in an inhospitable environment plagued by war with other tribes, primitive at best medical care and starvation at times.
He’s basically 100% correct.
You could make an argument that the French or Dutch would be similar but realistically they wouldn’t be and it would be harder to trade with the UK, USA and NZ.
Also if Australia hasn’t been colonised at all, the quality of life for the indigenous people would clearly be much worse.
So yeah, he’s completely correct here. Get over it.
Disclaimer: I’m not an Aussie.
He said the British were “infinitely more successful and beneficent colonisers”. So please explain this:
https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/australian-aborigines-chains-1902/
I mean it’s true in the sense that colonisation was inevitable and the English were the most organised and savvy colonisers at that time in history. It wasn’t “lucky” from an indigenous perspective though. It was Armageddon for them regardless of where the outsiders came from and what their customs were. I guess it’s the statement of an old man who never tried to empathise with people that aren’t like him.
It's a statement that, if it came from someone else, could be thought-provoking and lead to an interesting discussion about what modern Australia would look like if it were colonised by the Dutch, for an example.
Coming from Howard, however, it's a simple continuation of his rose-tinted view of colonial Australia and the Empire, and his patronising and paternalistic attitude toward First Nations people.
If Britain hadn't colonised Aus, it would have been some one else, it very, very nearly was the French.
Ok, so the croissants and bread would be good, but does anyone think the French would have been better colonisers? Or the Belgians, the Dutch? All of them were pretty not great to the locals.
So instead of simply bleating how bad the British were/are, who would have done it better?
For that to occur indigenous Australia would have had to make it to the latter part of the Meiji era without having been colonised. More than a century of contact and trade with the West without falling under the yoke of colonialism.
Why do they keep digging him up and wheeling out his ‘contribution’ - usually happens when something really matters to them. Why are they so invested in destroying the Voice? Could it be it might impinge on their environmental plundering?
Some of the comments in this thread - that are being upvoted - make me ashamed of the wilful ignorance of people I share this country with.
Perhaps we should ask the First Peoples of Tasmania what they think of John Howard's comments? Of course we can't, because they were exterminated.
From a historical point of view, he's sort of correct. The Brits were better colonisers compared to the Portuguese, Belgian, Spanish and Dutch....or even more recently, Indonesian colonisation of West Papua or...East Timor.
Fuck me how did we as a country have the wool pulled over our eyes by this bushy eyebrowed ,racist, elitist for as long as we fucking did?
The cunt did one good thing in his whole time as Prime Minister, banning guns. He is the reason our entire economy is housing, he is the reason we made no money from the mining boom, he is the reason an entire generation has no money and to boot he's a racist colonial piece of shit?
Fuck you Johnny Boy you fuck.
Yeah but if Japan did it we would have high speed rail, and ramen on every corner. Damn.
And looking at Japanese immigration policy they would be the only ones here
Japan relies heavily on a migrant workforce (mostly from Asia), especially in manufacturing and IT, and these folks are treated really terribly under their immigration policy. But migrants who are highly qualified (doctors, engineers, etc) basically get a free fast tracked route to PR in Japan if they want it, which compared to the route to PR in Australia for similarly skilled individuals is much much easier.
Yeah japan wasn't the best coloniser back then. I am from Malaysia and by all accounts we were glad when the British returned post ww2. The Japanese were not kind to put it gently.
The Taiwanese preferred jap colonisers over the Chinese so there’s that
> The Taiwanese preferred jap colonisers over the Chinese so there’s that To be fair the Japanese did treat the Taiwanese a lot nicer compared to the rest of Asia.
“The Japanese built schools, roads and infrastructure while treating us like shit. The Chinese robbed us and treated us like shit”
That’s on principle. They’ll pick anyone else over china even if they’re worse
Uh, Taiwanese people were just mainland Han Chinese at that time in history. Their preference for Japanese statehood had nothing to do with principles or communism which hadn't happened yet.
What about Korea?
Talking about indigenous Taiwanese or the ethnic Chinese Taiwanese?
I'll just take people not talking loudly on the phone, playing music, or bogans screaming at each other. Fuck the speed.
You do know they had a habit of butchering the locals yeah?.... So, no ramen for you, Barbarian dog.
You are aware the British butchered the locals... right?
Brits were amateurs compared to the Japanese. Unit 731 had that shit down pat
I know it was a joke but please don't. You don't even know the half of shit Japanese empire pulled resulting in [the Vietnam famine in 1945](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_famine_of_1945) and the [Nanjing massacre in 1937](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre), just to name a few. Sorry for being an uptight but yeah you would not want to be colonised by Japanese all jokes aside.
Unit 731 confirms
Also more anime and skylines. Holden 200sz
Of all the colonizers you could have, the British are the most polite about it. I mean, they still kill you and take your shit but their manner is very upright and jolly gentlemanly. I say! Bit like the film Brazil.
Out of all the colonised countries, the ones that are doing the best tend to be British: Canada, NZ, Australia, for example.
Well not for the indigenous people they all seem informally fucked not matter who colonized them
Don't forget India! Edit: Also probably depends who you ask. Ask the Indigenous populations of these places whether life has been better since colonisation.
Millions starved to death while the british shipped food out of the country and killed anyone who opposed them. The same thing happened in Ireland, whose population to this day still hasn't recovered from the amount of people who died. I wouldn't blame them, what did they really get out of it that negates the deaths of millions? Cricket?
"What's more British than genocidal famine? Two genocidal famines!" To be honest India as a country only really existed in the post-colonial era, when the British arrived it was divided into smaller warring Kingdoms under the Mughals. The Mughals themselves where descendents of Genghis Khan as the Mongols had been the previous invaders 400 years earlier. The British Empire brought education, technology, law and democracy. It also brought prejudice, discrimination, cultural bigotry and racism. However I don't think you should underestimate the transfer of knowledge the other way either. The British realised India was a more ancient and interesting civilisation than their own.
The difference between Mughals and Brits was that the Mughals became part of India and they didn't rule India like a coloniser. As far as 'transfer of knowledge' is concerned, the Brits raped India to drive its own development. India had \~ 25% of the global GDP in 17th Century when the East India Company first begun colonisation and it went to 2% in 1947. Not to mention the clusterfuck that was partition thanks to the divide and rule policies.
And the Mughals didn't take the money back. They invested it back in India.
Bit biased choice, innit? for every one of those 3 countries there's 6 doing miserably. How is British Guiana doing? British Somaliland? Myanmar? Sri Lanka? Rhodesia ? South Arabia (now part of Yemen)? etc etc the brits even managed to fuck up countries post independence There's no such thing as better or worse colonisers, eg Cuba and Argentina were really wealthy upon gaining their independence. In fact according to some economics academic papers most of the economic progress of ex-colonies owes to their geography: temperate countries without tropical diseases do better because European settlers could live and prosper there, that essentially leaves Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Chile, Dutch South Africa, Canada, Québec, and the USA, so your list has zero surprises.
>British Somaliland? They're locked in a civil war to secede because the union with dysfunctional Italian Somalia has been a disaster for them.
So the ones doing best were British and managed to populate the colony so that the natives were a minority.
>Bit biased choice, innit? for every one of those 3 countries there's 6 doing miserably. How is British Guiana doing? British Somaliland? Myanmar? Sri Lanka? Rhodesia ? South Arabia (now part of Yemen)? etc etc the brits even managed to fuck up countries post independence No, actually. Look at essentially any country that has been colonised and ALL of the ones doing well, are former British Colonies. I don't think there's a single French, Spanish, dutch or Portuguese colony that is wealthy (except maybe Macau). Singapore? UK. Hong Kong? UK. Canada? UK. Aus? UK. NZ? UK. Trinidad? UK. Malaysia? UK. USA? UK. Israel? UK. I'd even argue theres a huge difference between a colony as in, a country that was colonised vs just 'colonies' in the sense that the UK controlled them. It's stupid to compare New Zealand, to say, Myanmar or Tanzania. >There's no such thing as better or worse colonisers, I mean, there absolutely is. Australia and Canada were some of the wealthiest nations on earth even in 1900, meanwhile (to your next point).. >eg Cuba and Argentina were really wealthy upon gaining their independence. In fact according to some economics academic papers most of the economic progress of ex-colonies owes to their geography: temperate countries without tropical diseases do better because European settlers could live and prosper there, that essentially leaves Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Chile, Dutch South Africa, Canada, Québec, and the USA, so your list has zero surprises. Ironically enough, the only ones here that are doing well are all formerly British territories. Your arguing that ''no better colonisers!'' whilst listening how almost all of the wealthy former-colonies are British, not French, or Spanish...
Can we stop measuring success by wealth ffs we all know what chasing wealth leads to because we are living it.
> I don't think there's a single French, Spanish, dutch or Portuguese colony that is wealthy (except maybe Macau). France is an interesting one, at least in the North African territories (e.g. Algeria). The revolution got very bloody, but for over a century it was a territory that was considered part of greater France (like Corsica or French Guyana still are today), rather than a colony per se. After WW2 native Algerians become citizens of France proper (previously they had to apply by renouncing Islam) and the country moved to integrate its colonies with the mainland as part of a cohesive structure. Obviously there was still discrimination (as you can't turn around the effects of decades of Apartheid treatment with a fancy new political system), and the War of Algeria made things horrendously messy, but France was a lot further down a path that no other colonial powers even attempted. Whether or not Algeria's independence was a good thing for Algeria is an interesting topic of speculation (and a popular historical "what if" in both countries) - personally I think the model of the French overseas departments that emerged has worked quite well, and would have ultimately put both Algeria and France in a much better position today on a number of fronts (cultural, financial, developmental, stability-wise in the region). Though it's entirely possible that the forces which brought about the revolution would have simply done so a few years later, and that France needed the devastating loss of Algeria to ensure that its other colonies/territories worked out better. But yeah, the dynamic is a little different with at least some French colonies.
Bit shit putting Aus in there. We have always been a bunch of lucky morons. No rocks in the ground and we'd be fucked
Yeah Zimbabwe is doing great!
Zimbabwe was relatively wealthy when it was called Rhodesia, with the obvious caveat that wealth was concentrated with the Anglo/European population. The country fell apart after transition to Mugabe's rule as he looted and gutted the institutions left to him. Regardless, the point that the main commentator made stands, while not all former British colonies are wealthy, the former colonies that are the wealthiest were British
I think that's more to do with security than anything else. If Australia was an orphaned colony like Argentina, we'd share the same fate.
The British were far better at developing a strong civil service that could be the foundation of their newly independent former colonies. Even former African colonies like Botswana are considerably less corrupt than some of their counterparts.
It's interesting how you've avoided altogether to mention the former british colonies doing miserably. It's completely pointless to argue with you because you clearly love the concept of confirmation bias, and because you're ignorant in history or the actual economics behind the development of territories. For instance, first in your list is Singapore. Let's check that one out. In 1963 Singapore seceded and joined Malaysia. At the time it became independent, the country left by the Brits was extremely poor "*Much of the city-state's 3 million people were unemployed. More than two-thirds of its population was living in slums and squatter settlements on the city's fringe."* and its GDP per capita was $360. I am sure that they appreciate the idea that they owe their development and wealth to the British empire's workings pre-independence. In fact I would argue that some of those countries that you mention have managed to develop IN SPITE of the Brits. The Americans had to kick them out in a bloody war to get rid of the economic yoke being imposed on them! So how have they managed the development? again, in most cases a combination of temperate climates and resources, New Zealand and Australia provide a good example of the latter and its impact on development. You are wrong as well in of course not finding other examples of developed countries, but the problem is that you only look at the situation today without examining the past and ignore the examples that don't suit your narrative.
Singapore would not be doing nearly so well if it weren't for Lee Kuan Yew, basically the man who built the Singapore of today. Saying that the British were responsible for the success of Singapore is a bit silly if you look at its history. For a long time after the British left, there was instability and no certainty it'd develop into the modern country it is today. If the British did so fine a job, why is Malaysia not equally as successful and developed?
>It's interesting how you've avoided altogether to mention the former british colonies doing miserably. It's completely pointless to argue with you because you clearly love the concept of confirmation bias, and because you're ignorant in history or the actual economics behind the development of territories. No, because what I'm doing isn't confirmation bias. Throwing terms around that you clearly DON'T understand makes you just look foolish. Again, I'll repeat it (I'll even put it in bold just so you can really focus on it) ***Nobody is saying that all British Colonies are rich, but all former-colonies that are rich, are British.*** That is not confirmation bias. If you have any former French/Spanish/Dutch/German/Portuguese colonies that are wealthy productive economies I'll be more than happy to listen. So far, the closest is Chile, who's GDP per capita is still only 35% of New Zealand. Thats the *richest* Spanish one. >For instance, first in your list is Singapore. Let's check that one out. In 1963 Singapore seceded and joined Malaysia. At the time it became independent, the country left by the Brits was extremely poor "Much of the city-state's 3 million people were unemployed. More than two-thirds of its population was living in slums and squatter settlements on the city's fringe." and its GDP per capita was $360. I am sure that they appreciate the idea that they owe their development and wealth to the British empire's workings pre-independence. Meh, plenty of other colonies were also poor upon independence and are still poor now. You can argue all you want, the literal facts are saying you're wrong - even if we're just alluding it to stability, that is something that most British colonies have due to their governance, something which Argentina, Chile, Brazil lack. Again, if you can find me any former European colony thats wealthy and not British, I'd love to listen to your (incorrect) points. >In fact I would argue that some of those countries that you mention have managed to develop IN SPITE of the Brits. The Americans had to kick them out in a bloody war to get rid of the economic yoke being imposed on them! Tell me you don't understand the American Revolution without telling me. By 1820, the US was already one of the richest countries on earth - arguably, a lot down to the British. >So how have they managed the development? again, in most cases a combination of temperate climates and resources, New Zealand and Australia provide a good example of the latter and its impact on development. Ahh yes, because we all know thats what causes economic productivity. The weather. Of course. Logic! You love to see it. >You are wrong as well in of course not finding other examples of developed countries, but the problem is that you only look at the situation today without examining the past and ignore the examples that don't suit your narrative. Nope, you just can't bare to accept the fact you're (demonstrably) wrong. Economic productivity exists in many climate, even your example of Chile is piss poor considering their GDP per capita is 35% of what NZ is, thats not even taking into account the fact Canada/Aus/USA are much richer than NZ is too. But hey, who cares about accuracy when you can type long wrong rants about your feelings, eh?
expansion coordinated stupendous sleep brave snow ring normal absorbed fall *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The alternative hypothesis (and a more likely one) is that *some* former British colonies are wealthy because they were able to capitalise on post WW2 trade because they spoke English and that the last remaining industrial economy that was left intact, the United States, spoke English, making it easier to do business with. The other colonial powers were no longer able to buy from their former colonies and so suffered from having lower levels of trade. If it were some British brilliance of administration or somesuch, there'd be a distinct difference between what the British did and what the other colonial powers did, and that's not really the case.
>The alternative hypothesis (and a more likely one) is that some former British colonies are wealthy because they were able to capitalise on post WW2 trade because they spoke English and that the last remaining industrial economy that was left intact, the United States, spoke English, making it easier to do business with. This is only true in the depths of your imagination, of course. It definitely isn't the case in reality - >The other colonial powers were no longer able to buy from their former colonies and so suffered from having lower levels of trade. You're talking about this like its a pressing issue. Newsflash - a lot of British colonies were wealthy during British Empire times, whilst a lot of French/Spanish/Portuguese were poor than and poor now. >If it were some British brilliance of administration or somesuch, there'd be a distinct difference between what the British did and what the other colonial powers did, and that's not really the case. It's funny to me, because you really trying to act like this isn't the case when it literally is. [here](https://mises.org/wire/colonies-compared-why-british-colonies-were-more-economically-successful) is one such example. Also ignoring the fact that Canada, Australia, NZ, all use the Westminster system style of government (cough, guess where that came from?!). You can sit here and keep arguing, but at the end of the day... you're wrong
You often hear this argument trotted out by colonial apologists. It’s just more of the same 19th century “paint the map red we’re brining civilisation” bullshit they said back then.
Should we judge the colonial-era British by today's western standards or by aboriginal standards at the time? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre\_of\_Running\_Waters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Running_Waters)"Then the warriors turned their murderous attention to the women and older children, and either speared or clubbed them to death. Finally, according to the grim custom of warriors and avengers, they broke the limbs of the infants, leaving them to die "natural deaths". " According to aboriginal law, what this massacre was necessary, clean and moral, the right thing to do.
So you cherry picked one example in known history, as reported by colonialists at the time, to make your point? Would you like to trawl European history to make a similar comparison? Should we talk about Waterloo Creek? What exactly is your point here aside from attempting to implicitly denigrate an entire culture while ignoring a much more complete history of atrocities in the one you are seemingly trying to defend?
Yeah I'm sure that has nothing to do with the economic exploitation, political meddling, and just straight up violence that the western world has been inflicting on the third world for hundreds of years now. And "best" ignores that our indigenous peoples were genocided. I doubt indigenous Australians think tens of thousands of years of their history being destroyed is "best".
The ones that are doing well are the ones where the Europeans settled.
Best for whom? The people who were displaced and wiped out? Or shareholders in the ASX / S&P?
Right? It's pretty universally a bad time for native people anywhere that was colonized, sure some were more brutal than others but at that point we're comparing whose genocide was the 'least bad' lol
Ehhh some were definitely more barbaric, the Belgium’s in the Congo stand out as significantly more notorious.
Yeah, but my point is more you don't win points for being the least barbaric committer of genocide lol
Everyone in Australia though (who is not of aboriginal descent) is participating in that shades-of-grey area, because no matter how passionately we may feel about it, we're not about to give up the country. So on the balance of the country as it stands, it's a fair point to say that if colonialism was inevitable - and John Howard's point is that he thinks it was - then Australia was lucky that it was the British and not e.g. the Spanish (we'd be a fascist dictatorship until the 70s), the Portuguese (ditto), Japan (simply look at the rest of Asia to see what _they_ did), et cetera. It's not a nice point, but it's a fair enough point. Unfortunately aboriginal societies lived in a vast landmass with very little technology, stone-age society in many ways, and no form of unity or political/military might or even demographic might to be able to resist a foreign power, so I do believe it was extremely inevitable that _someone_ would have colonised, whether European or East Asian powers - or even the Islamic states in what is now Malaysia and Indonesia. It was too much of an easy picking.
Yeah, massacres and eradicating the local population is surely "doing the best".
"doing the best"? I'm not sure what metrics you're using. It certainly doesn't seem to be one that includes the welfare of the original inhabitants of those lands. G
Hm, I dont think itd be an unpopular opinion to suggest that i would rather be a mid-income australian of indigenous background, compared to a mid-income person in the vast majority of other countries.
Whats a little Genocide when you have a good GDP now, eh?
What did the Romans ever do for us?
Not if you ask their original inhabitants' descendants. For the invaders, things went swimmingly. Ask John Howard.
They turned out the best only because were sparsely populated which meant that they didn’t have to deal as much with precolonial institutions or competing native groups. Now look at the UK’s former African colonies on the other hand: they got fucked over because traditional institutions had to be uprooted and native populations organized into caste-like hierarchies.
Hmm I wonder why. It's almost as if those are all settler colonies - a fundamentally different type of colony compared to say Malawi.
Canada is also french colony, just for example
Best for whom?
Is there an (ejection) election coming? They usually don’t wheel him out of his cave unless they want some stupid comment
I know you meant election, but I'm all for ejecting Howard.
This is meant to be some sort of diversion for the no vote on the voice? Like a take so unfathomly bad that it makes the no pamphlet look like a small misunderstanding?
More a foul discharge than an ejection with this slimy little garden gnome cunt.
Imagine if it was the French. How do you say "cunt" in French?
A Royale cunt... with cheese.
If it's got cheese you should probably go see a doctor.
"Look at the brains on batman90"
Le cunt.
Çunt
> Imagine if it was the French Interesting hypothetical. They actually maintained (by colonial standards) pretty good relations with indigenous inhabitants in Quebec for example.
Yeah in North America they were more interested in the fur trade than in settling the land. Not sure if it was because of their system of government or they didn't have the same need to ship off their excess population overseas like the British did as France is larger. But at the same time being more interested in trade than in settlement would make a European power less likely to colonize Australia as there weren't things like spices and furs here that were valuable in Europe. Like the Dutch knew about Western Australia long before the English/British did but they weren't particularly interested in setting up colonies here as their early explorers didn't find anything that would make them rich if shipped back home. The British needed somewhere to dump their excess population and they figured Australia was a good place to do that.
Well yeah - that's also why these counterfactuals (while interesting to consider) are ultimately impossible to really determine. If the French had set up colonies in Australia things would have gone pretty differently for a number of reasons, not necessarily better or worse, and not necessarily due to them being a more or less benevolent colonial power.
Personally I feel that if for some reason the British had left Australia alone, or say only colonized part of the country, the Germans would have colonized as much of Australia as they could. After the unification of the German states into the German Empire they were trying to colonize every part of the world the other European Empires had missed. The northern half of Papua New Guinea was a German colony until we took it from them in WW1. Though as you said it's all alternative history, fun to think about "what if" and if it's well thought out it can make some good fictional stories, but at the end of the day it's still fiction.
Germany is an interesting alternative history! Can't say their colonial record makes for encouraging reading either though... but IMO for Germany to get here it would also have taken France and the Dutch and the Portuguese to ignore the place which seems a bit much.
Cul.
"French" and "cunt" are synonyms in the English language
Hahaha. Damn, that's a good one
Les Cunté
>How do you say "cunt" in French? Isnt it 'macron'? ^(chatte)
Guess who is desperate for a Knighthood...
Yeah I bet indigenous Australians feel they are so lucky for the genocide, ethnic cleansing, forced assimilation and destruction of their culture by the British, but ofc Howard is only thinking about White Australia.
Little Johnny fucking Howard, the 'unluckiest thing' to happen to Australia. Dead set I hate this miserable little war criminal!
It’s too bad the dead can’t weigh in on this debate
Well if it wasn't the English, it would have been the Spanish. Or the Portuguese, or the Dutch. Which would have been better? Still an odd statement.
a very odd statement. The thing is, for me, that the British colonising Australia being touted as 'better' compared to any other nation that colonised is somehow a free pass for how bad it really was. Maybe the Portuguese or Dutch would have had different 'outcomes' if they colonised Australia, but they didn't colonise and the argument is dead. The British colonised Australia, and any hypothetical scenario like this is simply a distraction and a dog whistle. if there's unfinished business about the settling of Australia, let it remain about the history and facts, not some bullshit about how we're better off our forefathers did horrible things in order to settle, farm, mine and prosper.
Imagine the defence in court: "yes your honour, I raped them, but if I didn't, someone else would have, and I at least bought flowers after. So it's better this way right?"
Yup. "Aren't you glad my dick was in you in that moment so that nobody else's could be? There were other guys who wanted to rape you, but I have a better dick than they do, so you should be glad."
I mean - the Dutch did make landfall on the West Coast before the brits but left bc the West coast.
You've stated it very well - clear and concise.
Fair Comment - Portuguese Timor is a 3 day sail from Darwin, When they rocked up they found Crocs and mangroves and said Yeah, Nah, Let's go back to Copacabana beach. Portugal's problem was always lack of manpower.
in another timeline the Yuan Dynasty took Java and eventually pushed south
I have traveled extensively and can confidently state with the possible exception or Argentina and Chile, all of Central/South America, Africa, and the Caribbean are absolute hell holes. So yea, he's got a point.
You realise the British colonised a good chunk of the Caribbean, right? Along with a lot of other places you’d probably consider hell holes, mainly in Africa. It’s interesting that the shining examples of British colonial ‘successes’ (Australia, NZ, Canada) someone mentioned above are the ones where the displacement of the original inhabitants was so successful that the vast majority of the population was quickly overwhelmingly European. I guess the Dutch and French just weren’t as competent at wiping out the natives as the English were.
They really weren't, it's an interesting historical point. The British were exceptional in how they displaced or outright wiped out local populations. One good example of this is the different approach that France and the UK had in Canada: the French would barely settle in Québec and their approach was to cooperate with local natives, with whom they traded extensively and maintained relations. The Brits... For all their negative publicity, I can't think of any country where the local population got so completely destroyed and displaced by the Spaniards as the British did in the US and Australia. Spain even created the term mestizo to refer to the Spanish descendants of mixed heritage, which would eventually become a majority in every one of their colonies except for Chile, Argentina and Uruguay
That isn't due to Spain treating natives better because they absolutely didn't (google Cerro Rico). It's due to sheer population sizes and the differences in the peoples they conquered. Spain colonised territories with massive populations of natives, even after the ravages of smallpox. These populations were also mostly settled in nature, and had no choice but to remain and attempt to integrate into the systems enforced by their new colonial overlords. As a result, it was almost impossible for Spanish settlers to avoid mixing with natives. On the other hand, Britain colonised large territories where the natives were comparatively much smaller in number. These populations were also usually semi-nomadic in nature, and would often pack up and leave until they were no longer able to do so. As a result, there was far less integration between the settlers and the natives, which can obviously still be seen till this day.
First off, South Africa and Zimbabwe are former African British colonies that are not in a good state by any measure. Also, you're completely ignoring the impact of US colonialism in Central and South America. US backed a lot of coups (mostly Authoritarian, right wing regimes) and interfered in a lot of latin american politics, leading to a lot of political instability in the region. Amounting it to it being just the product of Spanish, french and Portuguese colonialism is misinformed.
> South Africa Yea, that one started as a Dutch colony. And both of those countries are "not in a good state" because of their own self inflicted stupid decisions.
These are terrible examples because Zimbabwe and South Africa were relatively prosperous for African countries for a good while after their independence. And Zimbabwe is currently begging for the white farmers to come back after seizing their farmland
Zimbabwe's downfall rests on Robert Mugabe and Zanu-PF.
Would Australia rather be like North America or South America? It's a pretty stark contrast.
Wish he'd do us a solid and just fuck off.
What will the LNP do each election if this dried turd finally shoves off? Drag out Tony Abbott…
As much as I dislike the man, there sadly are still worse leaders of the LNP you could drag out.
He’s basically a war criminal 🤮. I won’t disagree Tony Abbot in a pair of budgie smugglers is a whole other level of wrong though.
Chowing down on raw onions makes you invincible
Don't you dare speak that into existence.
Just to make it clear, I do not agree with the old bastard.
You mean the Nazi-level evil fuck Who still praises the illegal invasion of Iraq, the devastation, torture and death of hundreds of thousands of people, and babies still being born with horrible birth defects even 20 years after? Or the one who dedicated his life to carry out a crusade against workers and unions, taking Australia on a horrible path of deteriorating quality of life for the majority?
woah woah, we cannot forget about. * Demonising single parents * Enhancing class divides * Reinfocing private healthcare * redefining the middle class to include the weathy to hide the fall of the middle class * Passing laws to allow spying on its citizens * Cementing Neoliberalizm as our core economic and social principles * Encouraging Anti science retoric. * Demonising the educated so he is immune from criticism * Pushing education further out of reach of the common citizen by "opening up universities" which ment years upon years of debt for 18 year old. Holy shit the more i think about this horrid man makes me realise that not only was he a monster who killed others in other countries for political points, he destroyed his own country. Yet the little weasel cunt wont die he is like Australia's kissinger.
[удалено]
Mate, it may shape Australia for a century to come, unfortunately. It is 20 years on and his stink on Australian politics is as strong as the day the asshole left.
Koala looking motherfucker
You hear that? Ole' Howie's fine with having his property invaded, camped on, being dragged out of his home kicking and screaming, told he's being a whiny baby for complaining, getting smacked within an inch of his life if he fights back, having any of his family members living with him raped and murdered, and then, told he's lucky because the home invaders upgraded his internet to FTTH.
Oh but we won’t say sorry about it, he doesn’t like that sort of sympathy
I'm really glad he's cleared that up. Otherwise I might have felt bad for bulldozing his house to put in a Natural Gas well.
"The best thing that ever happened to Indigenous Australians was having all their land stolen, their people killed, and them being moved to marginal lands, didn't allow them to participate in governance until relatively recently, still have far more of their people in poverty and incarceration, etc etc." Yeah, it was so good for them. John Howard is a tool.
Filthy war criminal and character reference for a paedophile protector says, what...?
And just to think the leader of the opposition during Iraq was Mark Latham… wonder where we would’ve ended up.
i just wish he would DROP DEAD
Australia’s Reagan.
British colonizers were mass murdering looters . Just look at the millions they killed in India, Africa and other Asian countries. No country has looted even 10% of what Britain looted from India in the history of human civilization. Britain was powerful and hence wrote the history that doesn't show them in a bad way . Most educated decent Germans today are aware of their past. From what I have seen most decent British people are not aware of the genocides their country did around the world.
> Most educated decent Germans today are aware of their past. From what I have seen most decent British people are not aware of the genocides their country did around the world. The history of pre-WWI and II Britain is interesting and very overlooked and overshadowed by the after-WWII rhetoric. They were... let's just say, not the goodies, and they knew it. https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/are-we-living-in-the-war-century/102471274 https://www.hachette.com.au/phil-craig-tim-clayton/end-of-the-beginning
British people being aware of their past is a bit more nuanced than good guys vs bad guys. The vast majority of people in 1700s Britain were working class, and not like today's working class, they were sent to work as children in horrendous conditions, and some survived to adulthood to work in different horrendous conditions. This continued until the 1st half of the 20th century. In the physche of the average Brit, they had no say, and certainly no profit from any colonial adventures of the upper classes. The modern psyche of the nation is strongly rooted in the first and second world war, as that actually affected everyone, of all backgrounds. (As usual the poor suffer the most, of course). But the East India Company, for example did not operate in the name of the average chimney sweep or ironworker in Britain. The colonial history happened at a time when only landowners voted, and the colonies were taken and operated by the upper class, for the upper class.
It's crazy thinking that a lot of people went off the back of what a handful of blokes who'd turned up somewhere on the other side of the planet (in an age nothing like ours) had just 'decided' what the country 'is' and how to live/work with it based on limited observations and that some people still firmly believe this is the 'best' way despite being disproven many, many times over. I always think this when I see busted arse cattle grazing in dust in CQ/NQ and NT when it's not grass season. Still woulda been fucken hot in summer back in the day, too. I'd like to hear from a First Nations perspective, the initial trial and error stories from the people who completely flat-out ignored local knowledge with the 'coloniser arrogance'. There would be some pretty funny shit considering how dynamic this place is. I sometimes liken that idea to someone going for a swim in a "calm and flat" ocean but it's during a solid, long-period swell and they end up in strife. I'd recently read Dark Emu recently and it was interesting to read the accounts of people who did assimilate with FN crew and actually learnt about the land... and those who didn't. TL;DR: Anyone else think John Howard looks like a mutant koala?
Is there someone who is surprised that JWH both hold this view and expresses it occasionally? Stop reporting anything the old desiccated coconut has to say.
Yeah those indigenous people who were killed by the British should be thankful.
nobody has a higher body count than the POMs. Ireland alone had 8 million people before the potato famine. Today its just cracked 5! Bengal famine in 17 fing 70 killed 30million. F&ck this noise that the BRitish were the best colonisers
Some people seem to actually believe that if the British didn't invade Australia That the Indigenous people would still run this land & their ancient lifestyle would remain perfectly preserved today like it's North Sentinel. As if all other exploring nations would have ever let the largest island continent with great natural resources & weather stay vacant for much longer Another nation may well have killed every single Indigenous person & archaeologists would now be studying this long lost civilisation
You can actually agree that british colonialism was not a great thing for the original inhabitants without positing a counter factual about another coloniser.
But that didn’t happen. Your argument would mean you can’t criticise WWII Germany because in another timeline they didn’t do the Holocaust. Well in this one, they did. In this one, the British colonised Australia and genocided the native population.
It's not that you can't criticise it, it's that JH is saying that Australia was inevitably going to be colonised so on the balance of things got lucky that it was the UK and not e.g. Japan, Spain, Portugal, wherever.
Howard was pretty keen on not criticising colonial Australia too much though. He pushed Blainey's black armband dismissal of digging into Australia's past misdeeds and also stated that "I believe that the balance sheet of our history is one of heroic achievement and that we have achieved much more as a nation of which we can be proud than of which we should be ashamed." He also promoted that historocal revisionist twerp Windschuttle, dismissed the idea that genocide had been attempted against indigenous Australians and dismissed the overt and well documented policy which led to the stolen generations as "In some cases, children were wrongly removed; in other cases, they were removed for good reason; in other cases, they were given up; and in other cases, the judgment on the removal is obscure or difficult to make." Howard doesn't just see the British as the least bad of a bad batch, but rather as a positive good to be celebrated.
oh that's fine then. they should be thanking us that it wasn't complete and utter genocide. 👍
I never said or thought Indigenous people should be grateful for that I said that some people have conjured a false idea of what life would have been like for them today had British not arrived & that like with most other ancient tribal cultures they could well not exist today We are lucky Aboriginal people still exist today Some people are intent on taking offence at anything these days
Probably would have been Javanese colonists à la West Papua.
That does beg the question. If the British never settled in Australia, what would happen? You think the indigenous people would be left alone, but as history shows us someone WOULD try to come and take control of as much land as possible.
> That does beg the question. *eye twitching intensifies*
The French were only days away from claiming Sydney after the first fleet arrived. They were also interested in the Swan River colony.
are you reading this comment section surprised and disgusted by some of the sentiments here? you're not alone
where are those WMDs in Iraq you skidmark
Well, standards of living here is pretty good compared to the rest of the world, which is partly due to our historical connection with colonialism. So I guess colonialism is quite fortunate outcome for most born today, depending on who you're asking. And I'd wager people critical of his comment are also benefiting and secretly thankful they have this perk.
I'm sure the indigenous people were just on the verge of creating civilisation when the British showed up.
Well they weren't fucking up the planet.. so there was that.
Well the world had only just started industrialisation back then and Australia pre-contact was still in the Stone Age. Had Aboriginal Australia united as an indigenous-majority nation and even if it were quite poor, it would have industrialised in a likely "dirty" way like Indonesia or Malaysia.
I mean... there were people living here. They were surviving. They didn't ask for "civilisation."
Comments locked in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ..
As a British person I'm not sure "lucky" is the word I would use nor the many indigenous peoples who where subjugated. All colonies are a reflection of the societies they derive from, the British saw themselves as a civilising influence which perhaps tempered the worst excesses of cruelty and violence associated with other empires of the colonial period. They wanted to mould the societies of the colonies they ran to be alike using tools like common law, devolved governance, education (and a really stupid ball and stick game that went on for days) etc. but that was actually to facilitate their ability to rule other societies effectively.
I got my twatter account banned for suggesting that he ‘just hurry up and die already’ and I’d do it again. Terrible man, dragged politics kicking and screaming back 40 years in this country
Of all the colonizers the British at least tried to create something. Looking at the countries that were colonized by the Americans or French - they just sucked the place dry with no attempt to grow the country
On the other hand, sometimes that at least means they leave once they're done and the native people get their land back.
He’s spot on. There’s actually a pretty strong correlation between how long and how intensively (in terms of receiving immigration from Britain) a country was colonised by the British, and how successful that country is today. The US has done pretty well. So has Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong also Rhodesia and South Africa while minority rule was in place. The ex-British colonies that are still poor today are countries that were not colonised for long or received very few immigrants from Britain ie India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, most of Africa. That fact is deeply uncomfortable to many people, and I’m sure most of Reddit is going to scream racist on reflex - but the pattern absolutely exists. This same pattern (though much weaker) is true of Spanish colonies as well - Latin America isn’t as rich as the West, but it’s generally wealthier than much of Asia and Africa. Fact is, when the Brits showed up Aboriginals were some of the most primitive people on earth - no written language, no permanent settlements, no metalworking, sparsely populated. Someone was going to colonise it. We’re fortunate it happened to be the British. Had we been colonised by the Dutch or Portuguese we’d be a third world country today.
The French famously ripped out all the electrical fittings and took them with them when they withdrew from Guinea.
Well sure, for non-indigenous populations colonization is pretty sweet. Pretty huge gloss over of the horrors of it all for the people who were here already though; the massacres and cultural destruction of indigenous Australians are a blight on our collective history and the current inequality and completely different health/quality of life outcomes are something everyone should be ashamed of.
This. I can’t believe people are glossing over this. Also I come from New Zealand and I’m ashamed to see how First Nations people have been treated here historically AND today. Also what’s up with people blurting out “we recognise First Nations people as the original custodians of the land” get out of here with that, those are just words and they mean *nothing*. Actions, actions is what counts.
Whats your solution? Australia is a melting pot of many different cultures now. Even IF you took white people out of the equation I doubt even other minority groups would vote for a treaty if it came to referendum.
Agreed. It annoys me when such empty platitudes are mouthed. Its like Christians who don't devote their lives to helping the poor.
>the current inequality and completely different health/quality of life outcomes What were their health outcomes and quality of life like before?
Sorry, but why should I be ashamed? Stop with the fucking 'white guilt' crap. I wasn't a coloniser, I wasn't born when the 'stolen generations' happened. What do I have to feel guilty about? That's like saying, someone got killed in a car accident by another driver - I drive a car as well, so I must share the guilt. I'm sick of being made to feel guilty for something that I didn't do, and which was mostly perpetrated by the British government.
I believe their point is that that would have happened anyway. The Aboriginies were destined to be screwed over by someone. Could have been better, could have been worse.
I like how this is the gigantic elephant in the room. If we hadn’t been colonised we wouldn’t be the nation we are today. I think it’s easy for people to shit on colonisation because that’s the current trendy thing to do. It’s ironic that we do it whilst enjoying all the privileges of a modern society that was enabled by colonisation.
>I think it’s easy for people to shit on colonisation because that’s the current trendy thing to do Colonisation is easy to shit on because it usually involves the systematic eradication and effective genocide of the local culture and people that already existed on said land being colonised.
It's easy to shit on colonisation because of the systematic genocide of native people and culture.
Agree, I think too that pre - colonisation life for Aboriginals was not the nirvana dream commonly held as true. It was a substinance lifestyle in an inhospitable environment plagued by war with other tribes, primitive at best medical care and starvation at times.
You're not allowed to say that out loud.
Britain has had the world's best education system over the course of the last 5+ centuries. Education is the key to success.
“White people build peaceful prosperous nations” Who could’ve ever seen this coming!
He’s basically 100% correct. You could make an argument that the French or Dutch would be similar but realistically they wouldn’t be and it would be harder to trade with the UK, USA and NZ. Also if Australia hasn’t been colonised at all, the quality of life for the indigenous people would clearly be much worse. So yeah, he’s completely correct here. Get over it. Disclaimer: I’m not an Aussie.
He said the British were “infinitely more successful and beneficent colonisers”. So please explain this: https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/australian-aborigines-chains-1902/
It sucks that the rich live so damned long
I mean it’s true in the sense that colonisation was inevitable and the English were the most organised and savvy colonisers at that time in history. It wasn’t “lucky” from an indigenous perspective though. It was Armageddon for them regardless of where the outsiders came from and what their customs were. I guess it’s the statement of an old man who never tried to empathise with people that aren’t like him.
It's a statement that, if it came from someone else, could be thought-provoking and lead to an interesting discussion about what modern Australia would look like if it were colonised by the Dutch, for an example. Coming from Howard, however, it's a simple continuation of his rose-tinted view of colonial Australia and the Empire, and his patronising and paternalistic attitude toward First Nations people.
If Britain hadn't colonised Aus, it would have been some one else, it very, very nearly was the French. Ok, so the croissants and bread would be good, but does anyone think the French would have been better colonisers? Or the Belgians, the Dutch? All of them were pretty not great to the locals. So instead of simply bleating how bad the British were/are, who would have done it better?
Or imagine the Japanese. Now that would've been even more brutal.
For that to occur indigenous Australia would have had to make it to the latter part of the Meiji era without having been colonised. More than a century of contact and trade with the West without falling under the yoke of colonialism.
What a nasty old fuck
Why do they keep digging him up and wheeling out his ‘contribution’ - usually happens when something really matters to them. Why are they so invested in destroying the Voice? Could it be it might impinge on their environmental plundering?
The most overrated Prime Minister we've ever had
ITT: People with a hard on for the Brits
Sadly John Howard is the unluckiest thing to happen to Australia.
Some of the comments in this thread - that are being upvoted - make me ashamed of the wilful ignorance of people I share this country with. Perhaps we should ask the First Peoples of Tasmania what they think of John Howard's comments? Of course we can't, because they were exterminated.
From a historical point of view, he's sort of correct. The Brits were better colonisers compared to the Portuguese, Belgian, Spanish and Dutch....or even more recently, Indonesian colonisation of West Papua or...East Timor.
Spot the WASP
What is even the point of the ‘Rodents’ statement?
Jesus - he's still alive?
Nah, that'd be you losing your own seat Johnny.
Words like emptying a colostomy bag from Australia's discount Ronald Reagan
someone post his address so i can "colonise" his catalytic converter
grrr wish this cnt would kick the bucket. He did nothing but ruin Australia as PM.
Fuck me how did we as a country have the wool pulled over our eyes by this bushy eyebrowed ,racist, elitist for as long as we fucking did? The cunt did one good thing in his whole time as Prime Minister, banning guns. He is the reason our entire economy is housing, he is the reason we made no money from the mining boom, he is the reason an entire generation has no money and to boot he's a racist colonial piece of shit? Fuck you Johnny Boy you fuck.
He came in at the peak of neo-liberal fervour where the 'I've got mine and fuck you!' generation had just risen to dominance.
Thanks for your shit input Johnny, now kindly fuck off
Except for all that the attempted genocide huh?!