Westerners Are Wealthy Because They’re Thieves

Posted on February 27, 2007
Filed Under Culture |

They occupied us and stole our resources. That’s how they became rich. European colonialism is the reason why Westerners are wealthy. That’s why we’re still struggling. Excuses excuses excuses… Bla bla bla… *Yawn*… It’s been many years since colonialism. Correct me if I’m wrong but has Finland colonized any countries? Denmark anyone? (Drima praying: please don’t mention the cartoons and overlook my main point). What about Sweden or Norway? Ah, let’s forget Europeans for a second. Japan was freaking nuked, 50 years later, they’re the world’s second biggest economy. You know what, forget what I said. Instead let’s see what al-Qaradhawi himself has said:

How come the Zionist gang has managed to be superior to us, despite being so few? It has become superior through knowledge, through technology, and through strength. It has become superior to us through work. We had the desert before our eyes but we didn’t do anything with it. When they took over, they turned it into a green oasis. How can a nation that does not work progress? How can it grow?

We’re the victims only because we choose to be. Some people I know never want to look in the mirror.

Comments

12 Responses to “Westerners Are Wealthy Because They’re Thieves”

  1. Andrew Brehm on February 27th, 2007 5:37 pm

    “Correct me if I’m wrong but has Finland colonized any countries?”

    No, but Finland has been colonized by the Swedish and the Russians. It was the Nazis that helped Finland against the imperialists.

    I never understood why colonialism and imperialism are bad. It doesn’t seem logical to me that self-government is somehow _better_, even when the results are worse for the own population.

    I suppose the Indians can run their country better than the British did, but they made it a point explaining that to the British peacefully, while supporting Britain’s struggle against the Germans.

    But in many places in Africa I really don’t see how local government, especially local dictatorships, are better than colonial government.

    “Denmark anyone?”

    Greenland.

    “What about Sweden or Norway?”

    Same thing as Denmark if seen over the centuries. These three countries, and Finland, have always been ruled by the same one to four governments. They were sometimes one big country, sometimes two or three, today four.

    Iceland, a few other islands, and Greenland also belong to that group.

    The Americans fought for local government and got it. They were doing well. South American countries did the same and did far worse. Canada stayed with the “mother country” and did as well as the US rather than as badly as south American countries.

    What is the case for the theorem that colonialism is bad PER SE?

  2. nominally challenged on February 27th, 2007 5:47 pm

    Andrew - and you can add England and France to Norse colonialism - of course, it happened during the time of the Vikings, but still, it was definitely colonialism.

    But Drima, what I wanted to ask about, essentially, was the Arab colonialism of North Africa (including Sudan, of course). Was it not colonialism? You’re still speaking an imported language some 1500 year’s later. Whether that colonial experience Was good or bad, I can’t say (though I’m certain that others could), but it can’t be denied that it was definitely colonialism - otherwise, Sudanese, for instance, would still be speaking the original languages of that area, and customs and culture, etc., would have remained and not have become Arab (as you noted correctly in your previous answer to me, this is more than a mere linguistic issue).

    Or am I wrong?

  3. tommy on February 28th, 2007 1:09 am

    Perhaps one of the biggest pieces of proof that you can’t blame colonialism for everything is Nigerian oil. The Nigerians discovered oil after independence and, if they had invested their oil revenues properly, might be sitting far better than they are today. Unfortunately, Nigeria is a very corrupt country and most of that oil wealth to date has been squandered. It’s a shame.

    Likewise, Ethiopia has been far less affected by colonialism than many other African countries (not entirely, of course, the Italians would be an exception). Nevertheless, it isn’t necessarily much better off for it.

    That isn’t to say colonialists were blameless. You need only learn a little bit about the Belgian Congo to know how bad things could be. Also, I think one of the most persistently damaging features of colonialism is simply the way that Europeans drew the borders of African nations without any regard for ethnic divisions.

    Getting the birthrate down, ending malnutrition, and cleaning up the tribalism, and the corruption and autocracy of Africa would go a long way towards making things better. Unfortunately, all of those things require that Africans take a large share of the initiative. Unfortunately, because all of those problems are interrelated, It is difficult to determine where to start.

  4. HalalHippie on February 28th, 2007 10:15 pm

    that al-Qaradhawi dude is talking a lot of sense. Are you sure he’s a Muslim ? :-)

    “Denmark anyone?” [that must mean me] Greenland was at first “crown property” then a colony, now it’s an independent country in commonwealth with Denmark, same as the Faroe Islands.

    We did colonize small-scale: One trading station in present-day Ghana and one in India. We also had 3 tiny islands in the Caribbeans - what are now the Virgin Islands . Complete with slaves and sugar canes. We were, however, the first European country to outlaw slavery.

    [Cartoons are still legal, tho’ ….. sorry, couldn’t resist :-) ]

    Anyways, colonialism was the way to boost economy back then. Nowadays it’s only multi-national companies that can exploit poor countries and get away with it.

  5. howie on March 1st, 2007 3:55 am

    Tommy…

    BINGO!!!

    “That isn’t to say colonialists were blameless. You need only learn a little bit about the Belgian Congo to know how bad things could be. Also, I think one of the most persistently damaging features of colonialism is simply the way that Europeans drew the borders of African nations without any regard for ethnic divisions.”

    And the same can be said for Iraq and a bunch of other places…I would include Palestine, Jordan and many others….Tribes, clans, etc. that have no real loyalty or connection to the folks that govern them…

  6. Freedom » Blog Archive » I Couldn’t Have Said it Better… on March 1st, 2007 10:07 pm

    […] The Sudanese Thinker in a post from 2 days ago has this to say: Westerners Are Wealthy Because They’re Thieves […]

  7. The Usual Suspect on March 2nd, 2007 5:36 pm

    I agree in principle with the notion expressed in al-Qaradhawi’s quote but I do also have some reservations about colonisation.
    It’s not so much the political but more the social nature of colonisation that leaves something to be desired. For a start, the predominant approach to colonisation has been one based on cultural relativism. Underlying the colonisation of many parts of Africa is a deep seated notion/belief/ attitude that the colonisers were more “civlised” than the “natives”. Generally, those colonised have fared much worse in terms of social and class status than the colonisers. Over generations this inculcates a sense of the colonised as an underclass. Under these kinds of social conditions, the colonised are rarely empowered to resume leadership and maintain order without the colonisers. When the colonisers leave- they leave behind a population of oppressed peoples who simply do not have what it takes to maintain the structured social order that the colonisers may have installed- because they have never been completely a part of that social order.
    Egypt in the 1990’s- I was teaching English at the British Council in Cairo. All the teachers had to be British (first choice) or Australian (second choice) nationals. As I have an Australian passport, I was allowed to teach there- but i was always treated differently by the other teachers. Each day in the Staff Room I would silently fume as the Brits would refer to the Egyptian people- their students and neighbours as THE NATIVES- and it wasn’t meant in a nice way either- it was the legacy of colonisation.
    One of the worst examples is ofcourse the colonisation of Australia and the impact on the Indigenous Aboriginals. Colonisation was based on a belief in the “superiority of the white races” and resulted in policies designed to outbreed the “natives”. The Aboriginal people suffered greatly under the white Australia assimilationist policies that had the explicit aim of breeding out the Aboriginal race in four generations.
    200 years on and Aboriginals are less than 3% of the Australian population and the most disadvantaged group- here in a country they have lived in for thousands of years.
    Sorry for rambling Drima- but you know I’m a sociologist.

  8. Drima on March 2nd, 2007 6:30 pm

    No problemo TUS. I enjoy your rambling. Hope all is good with you back in Aussie land ya sitti :)

  9. nominally challenged on March 4th, 2007 11:58 am

    And I’m still silently wondering why this analysis seems never to be applied to the Arab colonization of Africa (or, for that matter, the Muslim colonization of Persia, India, Indonesia and Malaysia, amongst others).

    In South African derogatory slang (as spoken by White people at least in the 70s and 80s), the Blacks were known as “kaffirs” (Arabic for “infidels”). Wonder where they got that idea from …

  10. Hipster on March 5th, 2007 12:02 pm

    TUS, thankx for the insightful comment.

  11. Jina on April 14th, 2007 7:18 am

    “I suppose the Indians can run their country better than the British did, but they made it a point explaining that to the British peacefully, while supporting Britain’s struggle against the Germans.”
    Gandhi and the gang supported the British, the other half supported the Japanese and the Nazis.

    “But in many places in Africa I really don’t see how local government, especially local dictatorships, are better than colonial government.”
    Irish and the English can’t get together, how do you expect 10 or 20 groups to get along in a single nation? Let me rephrase that, Irish and Irish can’t get along, how do you expect…

    “The Americans fought for local government and got it. They were doing well. South American countries did the same and did far worse.”
    This is because, Americans were ruled by the British and South Americans by the Spanish. British by far was the most civilized and just colonizers out of all the other colonizers.

    nominally challenged, Indonesia wasn’t colonized by Arabs or Muslims. The religious conversion took place through peaceful means when the local kings converted to Islam. It is the same case with Malaysia.

    Drawing of the borders was the problem. When one part of an European country was taken and included with another, it started a world war. Now imagine the thousands of tribes and ethnic groups that exist in Africa and Asia. Now put hand full of them into a country and asked to form a government. Imagine the chaos. French and the English couldn’t agree on a government in Canada when Canada was being drawn up. How do you expect 5 or 10 groups.

    On top of that, colonizers had this thing about killing the educated population, especially in Africa. When the nations were formed, they didn’t have anyone who knew how to run a country. Running a tribe is one thing but running an entire nation is another.

    Lack of education is another.

    At the same time, blaming the evil white man is always easier than blaming yourselves for your own failures.

  12. Andrew Brehm on January 16th, 2008 2:11 pm

    Look at Israel.

    Colonised by the Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians (although that was fine), Greeks, Romans, Persians again, Arabs, Turks, and English.

    And it’s doing well while still fighting off the last remnants of the Arab colonisers.

Leave a Reply