Vivid_ger_3717 t1_j42mou2 wrote
During the colonial period, European powers invading and occupying countries in Africa, Asia, and the Americas was a common occurrence, and these actions were often met with little or no condemnation from other countries or international organizations. This was due in large part to the prevailing belief at the time that European nations were culturally and technologically superior to the peoples they colonized, and that it was therefore justifiable to bring these "uncivilized" peoples under European control.
As for the reactions to specific wars, it would depend on the time, the context, and the country involved. For example, during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, many European powers had significant economic and political interests in Africa, and the Scramble for Africa was met with little resistance from other countries, as the European nations were seen as the dominant powers of the time.
However, as the 20th century progressed, there were increasing calls for decolonization and self-determination from the colonized peoples, and the actions of European powers in Africa and Asia began to be met with more widespread condemnation. The United Nations, which was established in 1945, was one of the key organizations that helped to coordinate the decolonization process and promote the rights of colonized peoples.
There are many books and articles that have been written about the history of colonialism and its impact on the colonized peoples. Some books that might be of interest include:
"The Scramble for Africa" by Thomas Pakenham
"The Empire Writes Back: Theory and Practice in Post-Colonial Literatures" by Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin
"Decolonizing the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature" by Ngugi wa Thiong'o
"The Wretched of the Earth" by Frantz Fanon
"A History of Africa" by J.D Fage and William Tordoff
These are just a few examples, and there are many more books and resources available on this topic. It's important to remember that this period of history is complex and multifaceted, and it's important to consult multiple sources to get a comprehensive understanding of the events and the context.
pk10534 t1_j43i4jr wrote
Thanks for that answer! As a follow up, was the Monroe Doctrine a challenge to that narrative? Just curious if the US was solely concerned about European power being in Latin America or if the US also was incredulous about Europeans being better suited to run those countries too
big_sugi t1_j43z1dg wrote
The US was actively engaged in its own imperialism in North America during Monroe’s presidency, and “the Monroe Doctrine” didn’t even get that name until after the phrase “manifest destiny” had been coined.
The doctrine was intended to keep European powers from reestablishing themselves in the Americas, because that would be a threat to the US. It was not, in any way, an indication that the US believed the non-white inhabitants were better equipped to govern themselves.
HawkeyeTen t1_j49rk9r wrote
Interestingly though, there WERE concerns in President James K. Polk's administration about how Europeans and others might view the end result of the Mexican-American War in 1848. It's part of the reason the captured lands (California, Arizona, Nevada, etc.) were technically purchased from Mexico rather than simply snatched and annexed. I'm not sure why they feared the Europeans would be angry about it a ton, unless: 1. It would in their view upset the balance of power in the world or 2. It would make America look like a hypocrite for practicing methods similar to European empires against fellow "New World" countries. It unquestionably helped lower anger and tensions between the US and Mexico though after the war though (since the lands technically were not stolen).
ArkyBeagle t1_j4mp9jx wrote
The US government was of two minds about indigenous people. They'd establish treaties and then break them as the treaties became inconvenient.
Nobody could stand in the way of land speculators. This is what's behind Andrew Jackson's ( apocryphal ) "Mr Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it" concerning Worchester v. Georgia.
The Mexican government could declare El Norte theirs but they really couldn't hold it. By the time railroads could be built it was too late for Mexico to pursue claims. Even then; fly over the border now. You see settlements that seem logistically untenable.
The incredible thing about the Texicans is that they simply refused to admit defeat against the Commanche. S. C. Gwynne's "Empire of the Summer Moon" outlines the persistent pattern of this phenomenon of memory loss in detail. There's some credibility to the theory of Walker Colt also having a hand in subjugating the Comanche. The Rangers really were hired killers first and foremost. This continued through the 20th century, with Frank Hamer leading the team that assassinated Bonnie and Clyde.
-UnhappyInstance- t1_j43jm8q wrote
Another good one is “Uncommon Wealth: Britain and the Aftermath of Empire” by Kojo Koram
Afraid_Concert549 t1_j44g5cd wrote
> During the colonial period, European powers invading and occupying countries in Africa, Asia, and the Americas was a common occurrence, and these actions were often met with little or no condemnation from other countries or international organizations. This was due in large part to the prevailing belief at the time that European nations were culturally and technologically superior to the peoples they colonized, and that it was therefore justifiable to bring these "uncivilized" peoples under European control.
Just to add to that, Chinese and Japanese colonialism followed the exact same dynamic, right down to justification based on the idea of their own superiority.
Muslim colonialism was a massively long-term enterprise, but obviously relied on the belief in the absolute truth of Islaam for its justification. That said, I'm not aware of any questioning from within of the Muslim expansion. None. Because thwt would likely be seen as blasphemy.
It's hard to determine how Inca colonialism was justified. It started in southern Peru and eventually conquered lands from southern Colombia to south-central Chile. It often made use of Stalinesque mass population transfers to prevent rebellions and insurgencies. But as to justifications, there wasn't necessarily one at all. Expansion and conquest seem to be the default human group behavior, and thus require no more justification than eating, except for civilizations with an extraordinarily highly developed sense of ethics, as these are the only ones que question such obviously beneficial actions as conquering more lands and peoples.
pheisenberg t1_j4ccbia wrote
Every society, certainly every powerful society, seems to be confident in its moral superiority. Military conquest, enslavement, and mass murder were apparently considered normal actions for most of history, so the real question is, why did ideological opposition to colonialism develop? It probably partly comes out of political opposition due to the unequal distribution of costs and benefits in the colonizing society, but I would guess it’s mostly from people applying the ethics they’ve learned in highly pacified cores to the world in general.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments