Would pro-colonialists support this?

[MikeG]

I read somewhere a few years ago.......

You have to do better than this, Henri. Give us your sources, or look up new ones. At the moment, you are just plucking stuff out of the air.

Do you understand that things have changed somewhat since 1947? If so, why would you reference a 70 year old book, when there are much newer sources?

 

[The Don]

I read somewhere a few years ago that there are now more billionaires in India than in Russia.

Then it should be really easy to find some kind of reference and post it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_billionaires

I don't know if it's due to internet fraud.

It depends on what you mean. If you mean that you read it somewhere because of internet fraud then that makes no sense whatsoever. If you mean that there are more billionaires in India than in Russia and that is because of internet fraud then I think that is unlikely.

There is a bit about India in that book Russian Outlook published in 1947 by Lieutenant- General Sir Giffard Martel:

Another person saying brown or black people are devious and not fit to govern - what a shock

 

[Henri McPhee]

You have to do better than this, Henri. Give us your sources, or look up new ones. At the moment, you are just plucking stuff out of the air.

Do you understand that things have changed somewhat since 1947? If so, why would you reference a 70 year old book, when there are much newer sources?

My source for that about Indian billionaires is from a new book in my local library a few years ago which I briefly browsed through. I can't remember the title. There is a bit on the internet about the matter:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/04/luxury/russia-india-billionaires/index.html

<snip>

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for Rule 11

 

[MikeG]

My source for that about Indian billionaires is from a new book in my local library a few years ago which I briefly browsed through. I can't remember the title. There is a bit on the internet about the matter:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/04/luxury/russia-india-billionaires/index.html........

I'm not interested in the number of billionaires. I am interested in you backing up your claims rather than just posting "I read something somewhere a while back......". Now that you've discovered how easy it is to provide links to your claims, maybe you'll develop the habit of doing it each time you claim something. That would be a big step forward...........as would you attempting to stick to the subject of the thread.

 

[fagin]

<snip>

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited in its entirety as it responded to an off-topic portion of a post.

 

[Elagabalus]

Okay, so there's a sentiment among certain people that European imperialism was ultimately good become before Europe, the native people were "savages" or "primitive". I wonder if these people would be supportive of a extraterrestrial empire that colonized earth. Certainly aliens with star trek like civilization could look down on earthlings as "savages" and primitives".

The answer is no. I don't know any Earthling who actively wishes to be subjugated by an extraterrestrial empire hellbent on colonizing the Earth* - whether they self identify as pro-colonialist or not.



*unless, of course, they're totally hot!

 

[Mycroft]

If aliens came to visit us, wouldn't we want to establish permanent relations with them? It seems like we should want that very badly because they would know a lot that we don’t know and the only way of learning would be to interact with them.

If that were to happen, wouldn't it necessitate that at least some of them come and live among us? Wouldn’t that inevitably create drastic changes and upheavals in our economy and culture? Is that necessarily a bad thing, or can we accept that there might be great good things along with bad things?

What exactly constitutes “colonization”? If aliens come in huge ships and negotiate with the world powers to establish cities of their own on the various continents of the world, exchanging knowledge and other things for land and materials, but are themselves treated as equals and treat us as equals, is that being “colonized”, and is it necessarily bad?

 

[Roboramma]

If aliens came to visit us, wouldn't we want to establish permanent relations with them?

Maybe.

It seems like we should want that very badly because they would know a lot that we don’t know and the only way of learning would be to interact with them.

You're looking at one side of the equation and ignoring the other. Of course there are potential positives. There are also potential negatives. To establish the best outcome we need to look at both both the positives and negatives and weigh them against each other.

If that were to happen, wouldn't it necessitate that at least some of them come and live among us?

No, why would it? Communication doesn't require proximity anymore.

Wouldn’t that inevitably create drastic changes and upheavals in our economy and culture?

Yes, I think so.

Is that necessarily a bad thing, or can we accept that there might be great good things along with bad things?

It might be a very good thing. It might be a very bad thing. I don't think there is a general answer that applies to all possible aliens. It depends on their attitudes and our relationship to them.

What exactly constitutes “colonization”? If aliens come in huge ships and negotiate with the world powers to establish cities of their own on the various continents of the world, exchanging knowledge and other things for land and materials, but are themselves treated as equals and treat us as equals, is that being “colonized”, and is it necessarily bad?

I doubt there'd be much reason for them to want to establish cities on the earth. To what end? And off the earth they don't really need to negotiate with us to start mining asteroids or comets.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

What exactly constitutes “colonization”? If aliens come in huge ships and negotiate with the world powers to establish cities of their own on the various continents of the world, exchanging knowledge and other things for land and materials, but are themselves treated as equals and treat us as equals, is that being “colonized”, and is it necessarily bad?

You seem to be talking about something akin to migration. It would constitute colonization if, for example, they established relationships with certain existing power bases (e.g. corporations or rogue nations) to subvert others (e.g. democratic societies) and establish oppressive and exploitative structures for their own gain. Like actual colonists did.

 

[The Don]

You seem to be talking about something akin to migration. It would constitute colonization if, for example, they established relationships with certain existing power bases (e.g. corporations or rogue nations) to subvert others (e.g. democratic societies) and establish oppressive and exploitative structures for their own gain. Like actual colonists did.

Like the British did in India, shipping off hundreds of thousands to other parts of their (in this case galactic) empire to act as cheap labour - and then just leaving them there.

 

[Puppycow]

Okay, so there's a sentiment among certain people that European imperialism was ultimately good become before Europe, the native people were "savages" or "primitive". I wonder if these people would be supportive of a extraterrestrial empire that colonized earth. Certainly aliens with star trek like civilization could look down on earthlings as "savages" and primitives".

Possibly I would be for it. It completely depends on the nature of the colonization though. But yeah, present company excluded of course, we really are a bunch of primitive savages.

Childhood's End was pretty cool up until the last bit. Aliens came and had solutions to most of the world's problems. But that would have been a boring book, so of course it couldn't just end like that.

 

[Mycroft]

Maybe.

You're looking at one side of the equation and ignoring the other. Of course there are potential positives. There are also potential negatives. To establish the best outcome we need to look at both both the positives and negatives and weigh them against each other.

And to be able to weigh the negatives and positives against each other, we would need to fill in the gaps of our knowledge quickly.

More importantly, the choice to interact or not to interact with them may not be ours to make.

No, why would it? Communication doesn't require proximity anymore.

We don't have the technology to communicate with other planets, at least not easily, so we would have to use theirs. If you're thinking they would stay in space and we could beam radio signals at each other from within our solar system, I would want to learn the things about them that come from direct observation

Yes, I think so.
It might be a very good thing. It might be a very bad thing. I don't think there is a general answer that applies to all possible aliens. It depends on their attitudes and our relationship to them.

A lot would depend on unknowns. I would think learning the scope of those unknowns would be a top priority.

I doubt there'd be much reason for them to want to establish cities on the earth. To what end? And off the earth they don't really need to negotiate with us to start mining asteroids or comets.

Good point, but the OP started with the assumption that they wanted to colonize us. Possible reasons to want to build cities is just a desire for comfortable living space where it's not necessary to expend huge resources to maintain breathable atmosphere. Perhaps they are enough like us that they also enjoy sandy beaches and sunshine?

 

[Mycroft]

You seem to be talking about something akin to migration. It would constitute colonization if, for example, they established relationships with certain existing power bases (e.g. corporations or rogue nations) to subvert others (e.g. democratic societies) and establish oppressive and exploitative structures for their own gain. Like actual colonists did.

In your opinion, what are the elements that distinguish colonization from migration?

If we “colonize” Mars it just means we build a habitat there that is self-sustaining with Martian resources, does that definition change dramatically upon the discovery of intelligent indigenous Martian life?

It seems like they would stand to gain a lot, at least in terms of Earthly wealth, just by being here and being willing to share advanced knowledge, which would necessitate forming relationships with existing power structures. Would they benefit more from establishing relationships with rogue nations than with other nations?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

In your opinion, what are the elements that distinguish colonization from migration?

If we “colonize” Mars it just means we build a habitat there that is self-sustaining with Martian resources, does that definition change dramatically upon the discovery of intelligent indigenous Martian life?

It seems like they would stand to gain a lot, at least in terms of Earthly wealth, just by being here and being willing to share advanced knowledge, which would necessitate forming relationships with existing power structures. Would they benefit more from establishing relationships with rogue nations than with other nations?

You're equivocating here. If Westerners had just moved to the Americas or India and set up trade stations we wouldn't be calling it colonization in the sense we think of. What happened historically was that they subverted existing power structures to establish political dominance.

Would they benefit more from establishing relationships with rogue nations? Maybe, if they seek to destabilize and bring down the existing order. The British allied themselves with various minors and warlords in India to bring down more powerful political entities, for example.

 

[Giz]

The British allied themselves with various minors and warlords in India to bring down more powerful political entities, for example.

As did Indian states, prior to the British turning up. Trying to make advantageous alliances is something that states have been doing since distant antiquity.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

As did Indian states, prior to the British turning up. Trying to make advantageous alliances is something that states have been doing since distant antiquity.

And yet there are vital structural differences when you do so in a distant overseas empire under the influence of racial ideology, due to for example outflow of wealth, social structures that do not serve local interests and ruthless exploitation of local resources. Destabilization was in their interest, in this case.


I'm honestly apalled by this line of apologetics.

 

[Giz]

And yet there are vital structural differences when you do so in a distant overseas empire under the influence of racial ideology, due to for example outflow of wealth, social structures that do not serve local interests and ruthless exploitation of local resources. Destabilization was in their interest, in this case.


I'm honestly apalled by this line of apologetics.

Meh, I find the "overseas 19th century empires are inherently worse than 'neighboring' empires" to be a lazy racist generalization.

 

[Mycroft]

You're equivocating here.

No. I’m not.

What I’m trying to do is to think hypothetically about what might happen if extra-terrestrial aliens actually visited and “colonized” Earth. I’m not trying to assert any particular point of view of the British colonization of India. If you want to look for parallels I think you should remember that’s only one model of what could happen.

If Westerners had just moved to the Americas or India and set up trade stations we wouldn't be calling it colonization in the sense we think of.

Which is why I asked you what elements distinguish between “colonization” and “migration”. While I’m not an expert in history, it seems to me the first Europeans to build colonies in North America didn’t need to subvert any existing power structures. When they had disagreements with the natives, they had gunpowder.

Visiting aliens would have similar advantages. If they set up peaceful trade posts, that would be great, but if disagreements arose, they have the ability to drop rocks on us from space, and there wouldn’t be much our technology could do about it.

What happened historically was that they subverted existing power structures to establish political dominance.

Okay.

Would they benefit more from establishing relationships with rogue nations? Maybe, if they seek to destabilize and bring down the existing order. The British allied themselves with various minors and warlords in India to bring down more powerful political entities, for example.

A technologically advanced society may be socially and ethically advanced as well. If they have ideas of better ways to govern and are willing to teach us, couldn’t that be seen destabilizing and subverting existing power structures and establishing political dominance?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Which is why I asked you what elements distinguish between “colonization” and “migration”. While I’m not an expert in history, it seems to me the first Europeans to build colonies in North America didn’t need to subvert any existing power structures. When they had disagreements with the natives, they had gunpowder.

If you think 15th-century guns were some kind of instant war-winner you are very very wrong. Moreover, firearms was one of the most important trade goods the Europeans had to bargain with. Hell, as late as the 17th century the Portugese were losing wars in Kongo. The most important military advantage the Europeans had is usually said to have been superior tactics. It's arguable. Anyway, for an example, Cortez was most certainly aided by local polities in confronting the Triple Alliance. There are some disagreements on exactly why Mohtecuzoma let his men enter the city with weapons - a common theory is that the Aztecs had no army at the time, and planned to assassinate the Europeans - but were one-upped by Cortez on that note.

In other parts of the world? Have you ever heard the term "Gunpowder Empire"? Yeah, they weren't European. In most famous fleet-decimating encounters, it was a matter of the superior range of European bronze cannons and poor tactics. Swarming of carracks with smaller vessels was more effective.

So I think you have a very inflated view of European "superiority".

A technologically advanced society may be socially and ethically advanced as well. If they have ideas of better ways to govern and are willing to teach us, couldn’t that be seen destabilizing and subverting existing power structures and establishing political dominance?

You could say that about the Aztecs and their human sacrifice-centered religion. Was their destruction and the establishment of European power bases a net gain for natives?

 

[Craig B]

Meh, I find the "overseas 19th century empires are inherently worse than 'neighboring' empires" to be a lazy racist generalization.

So for example Irish nationalists who struggled for independence were lazy racists because prior to the English Conquest different Irish clans and kingdoms had frequently fought with one another? You really think that?