Most conflicts result from a number of different factors, not just one.
Printable View
Most conflicts result from a number of different factors, not just one.
I'm not sure what to make of this response. My hope is that you're simply being informative, or perhaps tongue-in-cheek. I don't recall saying that conflicts have only one reason. As a matter of fact, I specifically used the phrase "one of" in my post. That phrase implies more than one. If the above was meant simply as a statement of fact without suggesting that I'd be so stupid as to believe otherwise, then I wholeheartedly agree. :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
Really? Of course, without it you would not be where you are now... either you would be in the Mother Country or you would be in a Native American tribe or you would be in an African tribe (although since the slaves were bought off of other African tribes you might well be elsewhere in the world or dead)Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon
The Dutch never really actively colonized until the 19th century, but that's 'cause we didn't do it ourselves, as a state, like the rest -- we let the world's first multinational handle the conquest, instead. A result was that our long-term possessions, those in what is now Indonesia (richest colony in the world resource-wise; yes, richer than India), held very small amounts of colonists and in identity were more akin to the later colonies in Africa than anything else. The VOC (Dutch East India Company) was, after all, more interested in profit than spreading the proverbial good word of the Lord or shouldering the equally proverbial "white man's burden".
Dutch colonial empire
Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie (the guys who dominated Indonesia)
West-Indische Compagnie (the guys that founded New York, took the Dutch Antilles, and held Brazil for half a century)
The Dutch Seaborne Empire 1600 - 1800
Oh, and, for you British nuts: the Spanish Empire was larger in useful bits (that means no Canadian tundras or Siberian ice sheets). Pwnd. You did ace them in population, though -- however, Canada gave you that edge in pure map pixels, but it was useless to the UK throughout its history. The resources there (like Siberia, very profitable for the modern age) only became truly profitable in the 20th century when the British Empire had already been dismantled.
Colonialism is a very intriguing thing. It's very interesting, especially if you study it. Of course, there are many bad parts about it, but, a small country can take up a country as 2 or 3 times as she was(to control it).
Look at the Dutch and their West Indies Company.
The Worlds biggest super power wouldnt exsist without, so really you americans shouldnt be condeming it but should be thanking us same for the aussies and canadians.....
Thanks:bow:
You're very much welcome. Last I checked, I never personally stuck the union jack into anyone elses' land, however.
Eh? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by King Ragnar
Settling your people in land you deem "yours" was never really an new concept, was it? You can't go poking the finger solely at Europeans for it either, can you? And I take it therefore that you mean Imperialism, in which case don't be daft.. afterall didn't the US pretty much start it's own expansion thing shortly after gaining independance?Quote:
I hate colonialism. Thanks a lot you European ********.
I don't think he was addressing you directly.. dunno.Quote:
Eh?
Alexander: you're half Indian right? Indians formed their own empires, with the Mughals, Mauryans and all. And you wouldn't be who you are today if it wasn't for colonialism.
Is this productive discussion? "You wouldn't be who you are without colonialism." Honestly, how do you know? That's right. You don't.
Uh yeah we do its quite simple.
Thats like saying, it deosn't matter if we had evolved from snakes, we would still be the same people we are today.
Absurd.
Of course we do, because say if people didnt start to colonise america until 50 years ago, most likely non of the americans on here would be posting:dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
Wasnt naval power what helped with that? I mean without good ships you would be atacked more often
Edit:
Upon further, and more full, review, i've decided that this thread has served its purpose. The current course of discussion doesn't seem to be moving in a positive direction, therefore..
Locked.
If you have a problem feel free to pm me.