QUESTION: If colonization was so beneficial, why did people fight so hard for independence?
Colonization. Empire-building. To me, they're different labels for the same basic idea: one group of people gaining power over another group and deciding how that group should live.
Throughout history, empires have often been driven by leaders who wanted more territory, more influence, wealth, or control. But leaders can't build empires alone. They need supporters. And many of those supporters aren't necessarily loyal to an ideology. Sometimes they simply choose the side they believe is winning.
.png)
History gives us countless examples.
🌏Take Japanese colonial rule in Korea.Some Koreans cooperated with the Japanese administration. Many of their fellow countrymen viewed them as traitors. Yet from the perspective of those who collaborated, the calculation may have seemed practical: "If we can't defeat them, we might as well work with them."
Korea is only one example. Similar patterns appear throughout history and across different cultures. Whenever one group gains power over another, there are often people who resist and people who adapt.
Supporters of colonial rule frequently point out the infrastructure, technology, and institutions that empires introduced. Roads, railways, schools, ports, and other forms of modernization are often cited as benefits.
But here's the question that always comes to my mind:
- If your goal is truly to improve the lives of local people, why do they need to be ruled by outsiders in the first place? (Ruled? OK. OPPRESSED.)
🌎Another example: The Bahamas.
My husband and father were both from The Bahamas.
My father grew up when The Bahamas was governed by Britain. My husband experienced both eras. He remembers Queen Elizabeth visiting the country, and he also remembers celebrating Bahamian independence.
There's no question that British influence brought certain developments and institutions. At the same time, many people in former colonies remember something else: the "attitude" that the colonizers were superior to the people who were already living there.
That part of the story shouldn't be ignored.
🌍Let's contrast the example of Ethiopia.
Ethiopia loves to brag that they were never colonized. They remained independent although their current state of affairs leaves something to be desired. But they could say, "Hey! At least an outsider didn't come in and screw us over! We can do bad all by ourselves."
Support Colonization and Empire-Building. WHY?
To me, that's where the argument for support of colonization starts to break down.
It's similar to the attitude some tourists bring when they travel. They go somewhere new and immediately look for familiar brands, food, and customs. Instead of appreciating the culture they're visiting, they want the travel destination to resemble the home they left.
History is filled with powerful empires that once seemed unstoppable. As if they would last forever.
- Assyrians.
- Babylonians.
- Persians.
- Macedonian Empire of Alexander the Great
- Romans.
- Russian Empire.
- British Empire.
That's one of the recurring lessons of history.
People may tolerate outside control for a time, but eventually many begin asking a simple question: Why should someone else govern us?
That question has fueled independence movements all over the world.
Can you understand why?
What's the value of modern conveniences if they come at the cost of freedom and self-determination?
This same skepticism shapes my view of war.
It's probably why I love “War”, that popular song by Edwin Starr**.
World War II is often remembered as a war that clearly confronted aggressive expansion and tyranny. Many conflicts that followed, however, are much more heavily debated. Citizens are often told that wars are being fought for freedom, security, patriotism, or national interests.
But I increasingly wonder how often economic interests and powerful institutions play a larger role than ordinary people are led to believe.
That's the main reason I am skeptical whenever political leaders try to present their justification for war in simple moral terms (or biblical terms).
History rarely seems that simple.
The subjects of colonization, empire-building, war, and independence are extremely complicated.
These are only my opinions, and I'm sure many people will disagree.
But agree or disagree, it's hard to ignore that one question, isn't it?
- What's the value of modern conveniences if they come at the cost of freedom and self-determination?
If people truly benefit from being governed by others, why have so many fought so hard throughout history for independence to govern themselves?
** The Match Me Podcast. “Edwin Starr- War (HQ).” YouTube, 10 May 2012, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQHUAJTZqF0.
♦♦
FINAL NOTE: HI vs AI
I felt very strongly about stating my opinion this way, but AI disagreed:
I SAID: (For my opening paragraph.) "You can usually trace it to one man (or one woman on rare occasions) wanting to LORD IT OVER EVERYBODY ELSE. And the reason that person can get away with it is that they have a bunch of cronies who will support them. The cronies don't support them because they agree with the way they govern. They just choose the side they think is WINNING. It's that way everywhere in the world."
AI SAID: My statements are “emotionally powerful, ... historians would argue that empire-building often involves economics, resources, ideology, religion, security concerns, competing states, and social pressures, not just one dominant personality.”
